Upload File

provost’s leadership retreat...academic careers in engineering and science, or aces for short, is...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in
55
www.case.edu/admin/aces Provost’s Leadership Retreat 26 October 2004

Upload: others

Post on 11-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

wwwcaseeduadminaces

Provostrsquos Leadership Retreat26 October 2004

2

Retreat Objectivesbull Gain knowledge about NSF ADVANCE and

ACES activities at Casebull Learn from the experiences of ACES Phase 1

test departments and other leading NSF ADVANCE institutions

bull Create a collective understanding of the needs for institutional transformation at Case

bull Identify strategies for addressing issues related to women faculty

bull Gain new ideas through interaction with other SampE deans and chairs

3

Retreat Agenda

bull Welcome and Introductionsbull ACES Year 1 ndash Overview Experience of

Test Depts Evaluationbull U of Michiganrsquos ADVANCE programbull Deanrsquos Panel of New Initiatives at Casebull SWOT exercisebull Georgia Techrsquos ADVANCE programbull Next steps

4

What is the Problem

Myth ldquohellipthere are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty memberhellipthe ldquopipelinerdquo problemrdquo

Fact ldquoThe data indicate that this is true for minorities [in S amp E] false for womenrdquo

Source Cathy A Trower and Richard P Chait Faculty Diversity Too little for too long

Presenter
Presentation Notes
What is the problem with the decreasing numbers of women in academia Often it is stated that there are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty member - that there is a pipeline problem13The fact is that the data indicate that this is true for minorities in Science and Engineering but it is false for women131313

5

Academic Transformation is Possible

ldquoThe progress of this institution hellipwill be directly proportional to the death rate of the facultyrdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Well I am here as part of the Case NSF Advance program to say that Academic Transformation is possible1313Just out of curiosity what year do you think that quote was made

6

How Close Was Your Answer

1911

William T Foster (1879-1950) President Reed College

There were 46 students and 5 faculty members at the time

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In 1911 with only 5 faculty members and 46 students William Foster president of Reed College felt that the situation was intractable 13

7

Areas of Concern at Case

bull Low of women faculty in SampE fieldsbull Low of African-American amp Hispanic-

American faculty in SampE fieldsbull Retention of senior women and minority

faculty in SampE fieldsbull Absence of women faculty in academic

leadership positions in SampE fieldsbull Women faculty across Case report lower

satisfaction with the academic climate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
1) There continues to be a need for women faculty throughout the University Although among our peer institutions only Vanderbilt and Johns Hopkins have a higher percentage of women faculty we must strive to recruit and retain women at the same level as national averages ( Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)132) The low percentage of women who are full professors and who are tenured continues to be a concern Of our peer institutions only MIT Rochester and Washington University have lower percentages of female full professors than Case (Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)133) The low percentage of women faculty with endowed chairs throughout the University but especially within the School of Medicine is a major concern The absence of women faculty in leadership positions (Deans and Chairs) throughout the University is a major concern134) Retention of junior faculty particularly in the School of Medicine is an area of concern135) The low percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American faculty in all areas of the faculty is a major concern136) Retention of African American and Hispanic faculty is a major concern137) Retention of Senior women faculty is a concern13

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 2: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

2

Retreat Objectivesbull Gain knowledge about NSF ADVANCE and

ACES activities at Casebull Learn from the experiences of ACES Phase 1

test departments and other leading NSF ADVANCE institutions

bull Create a collective understanding of the needs for institutional transformation at Case

bull Identify strategies for addressing issues related to women faculty

bull Gain new ideas through interaction with other SampE deans and chairs

3

Retreat Agenda

bull Welcome and Introductionsbull ACES Year 1 ndash Overview Experience of

Test Depts Evaluationbull U of Michiganrsquos ADVANCE programbull Deanrsquos Panel of New Initiatives at Casebull SWOT exercisebull Georgia Techrsquos ADVANCE programbull Next steps

4

What is the Problem

Myth ldquohellipthere are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty memberhellipthe ldquopipelinerdquo problemrdquo

Fact ldquoThe data indicate that this is true for minorities [in S amp E] false for womenrdquo

Source Cathy A Trower and Richard P Chait Faculty Diversity Too little for too long

Presenter
Presentation Notes
What is the problem with the decreasing numbers of women in academia Often it is stated that there are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty member - that there is a pipeline problem13The fact is that the data indicate that this is true for minorities in Science and Engineering but it is false for women131313

5

Academic Transformation is Possible

ldquoThe progress of this institution hellipwill be directly proportional to the death rate of the facultyrdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Well I am here as part of the Case NSF Advance program to say that Academic Transformation is possible1313Just out of curiosity what year do you think that quote was made

6

How Close Was Your Answer

1911

William T Foster (1879-1950) President Reed College

There were 46 students and 5 faculty members at the time

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In 1911 with only 5 faculty members and 46 students William Foster president of Reed College felt that the situation was intractable 13

7

Areas of Concern at Case

bull Low of women faculty in SampE fieldsbull Low of African-American amp Hispanic-

American faculty in SampE fieldsbull Retention of senior women and minority

faculty in SampE fieldsbull Absence of women faculty in academic

leadership positions in SampE fieldsbull Women faculty across Case report lower

satisfaction with the academic climate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
1) There continues to be a need for women faculty throughout the University Although among our peer institutions only Vanderbilt and Johns Hopkins have a higher percentage of women faculty we must strive to recruit and retain women at the same level as national averages ( Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)132) The low percentage of women who are full professors and who are tenured continues to be a concern Of our peer institutions only MIT Rochester and Washington University have lower percentages of female full professors than Case (Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)133) The low percentage of women faculty with endowed chairs throughout the University but especially within the School of Medicine is a major concern The absence of women faculty in leadership positions (Deans and Chairs) throughout the University is a major concern134) Retention of junior faculty particularly in the School of Medicine is an area of concern135) The low percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American faculty in all areas of the faculty is a major concern136) Retention of African American and Hispanic faculty is a major concern137) Retention of Senior women faculty is a concern13

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 3: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

3

Retreat Agenda

bull Welcome and Introductionsbull ACES Year 1 ndash Overview Experience of

Test Depts Evaluationbull U of Michiganrsquos ADVANCE programbull Deanrsquos Panel of New Initiatives at Casebull SWOT exercisebull Georgia Techrsquos ADVANCE programbull Next steps

4

What is the Problem

Myth ldquohellipthere are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty memberhellipthe ldquopipelinerdquo problemrdquo

Fact ldquoThe data indicate that this is true for minorities [in S amp E] false for womenrdquo

Source Cathy A Trower and Richard P Chait Faculty Diversity Too little for too long

Presenter
Presentation Notes
What is the problem with the decreasing numbers of women in academia Often it is stated that there are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty member - that there is a pipeline problem13The fact is that the data indicate that this is true for minorities in Science and Engineering but it is false for women131313

5

Academic Transformation is Possible

ldquoThe progress of this institution hellipwill be directly proportional to the death rate of the facultyrdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Well I am here as part of the Case NSF Advance program to say that Academic Transformation is possible1313Just out of curiosity what year do you think that quote was made

6

How Close Was Your Answer

1911

William T Foster (1879-1950) President Reed College

There were 46 students and 5 faculty members at the time

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In 1911 with only 5 faculty members and 46 students William Foster president of Reed College felt that the situation was intractable 13

7

Areas of Concern at Case

bull Low of women faculty in SampE fieldsbull Low of African-American amp Hispanic-

American faculty in SampE fieldsbull Retention of senior women and minority

faculty in SampE fieldsbull Absence of women faculty in academic

leadership positions in SampE fieldsbull Women faculty across Case report lower

satisfaction with the academic climate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
1) There continues to be a need for women faculty throughout the University Although among our peer institutions only Vanderbilt and Johns Hopkins have a higher percentage of women faculty we must strive to recruit and retain women at the same level as national averages ( Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)132) The low percentage of women who are full professors and who are tenured continues to be a concern Of our peer institutions only MIT Rochester and Washington University have lower percentages of female full professors than Case (Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)133) The low percentage of women faculty with endowed chairs throughout the University but especially within the School of Medicine is a major concern The absence of women faculty in leadership positions (Deans and Chairs) throughout the University is a major concern134) Retention of junior faculty particularly in the School of Medicine is an area of concern135) The low percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American faculty in all areas of the faculty is a major concern136) Retention of African American and Hispanic faculty is a major concern137) Retention of Senior women faculty is a concern13

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 4: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

4

What is the Problem

Myth ldquohellipthere are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty memberhellipthe ldquopipelinerdquo problemrdquo

Fact ldquoThe data indicate that this is true for minorities [in S amp E] false for womenrdquo

Source Cathy A Trower and Richard P Chait Faculty Diversity Too little for too long

Presenter
Presentation Notes
What is the problem with the decreasing numbers of women in academia Often it is stated that there are insufficient numbers of women and minorities on the pathway from graduate student to faculty member - that there is a pipeline problem13The fact is that the data indicate that this is true for minorities in Science and Engineering but it is false for women131313

5

Academic Transformation is Possible

ldquoThe progress of this institution hellipwill be directly proportional to the death rate of the facultyrdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Well I am here as part of the Case NSF Advance program to say that Academic Transformation is possible1313Just out of curiosity what year do you think that quote was made

6

How Close Was Your Answer

1911

William T Foster (1879-1950) President Reed College

There were 46 students and 5 faculty members at the time

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In 1911 with only 5 faculty members and 46 students William Foster president of Reed College felt that the situation was intractable 13

7

Areas of Concern at Case

bull Low of women faculty in SampE fieldsbull Low of African-American amp Hispanic-

American faculty in SampE fieldsbull Retention of senior women and minority

faculty in SampE fieldsbull Absence of women faculty in academic

leadership positions in SampE fieldsbull Women faculty across Case report lower

satisfaction with the academic climate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
1) There continues to be a need for women faculty throughout the University Although among our peer institutions only Vanderbilt and Johns Hopkins have a higher percentage of women faculty we must strive to recruit and retain women at the same level as national averages ( Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)132) The low percentage of women who are full professors and who are tenured continues to be a concern Of our peer institutions only MIT Rochester and Washington University have lower percentages of female full professors than Case (Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)133) The low percentage of women faculty with endowed chairs throughout the University but especially within the School of Medicine is a major concern The absence of women faculty in leadership positions (Deans and Chairs) throughout the University is a major concern134) Retention of junior faculty particularly in the School of Medicine is an area of concern135) The low percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American faculty in all areas of the faculty is a major concern136) Retention of African American and Hispanic faculty is a major concern137) Retention of Senior women faculty is a concern13

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 5: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

5

Academic Transformation is Possible

ldquoThe progress of this institution hellipwill be directly proportional to the death rate of the facultyrdquo

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Well I am here as part of the Case NSF Advance program to say that Academic Transformation is possible1313Just out of curiosity what year do you think that quote was made

6

How Close Was Your Answer

1911

William T Foster (1879-1950) President Reed College

There were 46 students and 5 faculty members at the time

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In 1911 with only 5 faculty members and 46 students William Foster president of Reed College felt that the situation was intractable 13

7

Areas of Concern at Case

bull Low of women faculty in SampE fieldsbull Low of African-American amp Hispanic-

American faculty in SampE fieldsbull Retention of senior women and minority

faculty in SampE fieldsbull Absence of women faculty in academic

leadership positions in SampE fieldsbull Women faculty across Case report lower

satisfaction with the academic climate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
1) There continues to be a need for women faculty throughout the University Although among our peer institutions only Vanderbilt and Johns Hopkins have a higher percentage of women faculty we must strive to recruit and retain women at the same level as national averages ( Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)132) The low percentage of women who are full professors and who are tenured continues to be a concern Of our peer institutions only MIT Rochester and Washington University have lower percentages of female full professors than Case (Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)133) The low percentage of women faculty with endowed chairs throughout the University but especially within the School of Medicine is a major concern The absence of women faculty in leadership positions (Deans and Chairs) throughout the University is a major concern134) Retention of junior faculty particularly in the School of Medicine is an area of concern135) The low percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American faculty in all areas of the faculty is a major concern136) Retention of African American and Hispanic faculty is a major concern137) Retention of Senior women faculty is a concern13

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 6: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

6

How Close Was Your Answer

1911

William T Foster (1879-1950) President Reed College

There were 46 students and 5 faculty members at the time

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In 1911 with only 5 faculty members and 46 students William Foster president of Reed College felt that the situation was intractable 13

7

Areas of Concern at Case

bull Low of women faculty in SampE fieldsbull Low of African-American amp Hispanic-

American faculty in SampE fieldsbull Retention of senior women and minority

faculty in SampE fieldsbull Absence of women faculty in academic

leadership positions in SampE fieldsbull Women faculty across Case report lower

satisfaction with the academic climate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
1) There continues to be a need for women faculty throughout the University Although among our peer institutions only Vanderbilt and Johns Hopkins have a higher percentage of women faculty we must strive to recruit and retain women at the same level as national averages ( Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)132) The low percentage of women who are full professors and who are tenured continues to be a concern Of our peer institutions only MIT Rochester and Washington University have lower percentages of female full professors than Case (Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)133) The low percentage of women faculty with endowed chairs throughout the University but especially within the School of Medicine is a major concern The absence of women faculty in leadership positions (Deans and Chairs) throughout the University is a major concern134) Retention of junior faculty particularly in the School of Medicine is an area of concern135) The low percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American faculty in all areas of the faculty is a major concern136) Retention of African American and Hispanic faculty is a major concern137) Retention of Senior women faculty is a concern13

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 7: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

7

Areas of Concern at Case

bull Low of women faculty in SampE fieldsbull Low of African-American amp Hispanic-

American faculty in SampE fieldsbull Retention of senior women and minority

faculty in SampE fieldsbull Absence of women faculty in academic

leadership positions in SampE fieldsbull Women faculty across Case report lower

satisfaction with the academic climate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
1) There continues to be a need for women faculty throughout the University Although among our peer institutions only Vanderbilt and Johns Hopkins have a higher percentage of women faculty we must strive to recruit and retain women at the same level as national averages ( Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)132) The low percentage of women who are full professors and who are tenured continues to be a concern Of our peer institutions only MIT Rochester and Washington University have lower percentages of female full professors than Case (Source IPEDS Fall Staff Survey 2003 US Department of Education)133) The low percentage of women faculty with endowed chairs throughout the University but especially within the School of Medicine is a major concern The absence of women faculty in leadership positions (Deans and Chairs) throughout the University is a major concern134) Retention of junior faculty particularly in the School of Medicine is an area of concern135) The low percentage of African-American and Hispanic-American faculty in all areas of the faculty is a major concern136) Retention of African American and Hispanic faculty is a major concern137) Retention of Senior women faculty is a concern13

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 8: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

8

2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty

0102030405060708090

100

Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

MaleFemale

Source PayrollInstitutional Research Data

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 9: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

9

Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)Female faculty as compared to male faculty

bull Feel less supported and valued in their academic units and feel more pressure and restrictions

bull Perceive that gender race and family obligations make a difference in how faculty members are treated

bull Rate their academic unit headrsquos leadership lower and rate the resources and supports they provide lower

bull Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less equitably distributed

bull Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation office and lab space teaching requirements and clerical support

bull Are less satisfied with their overall community and job experience at Case

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 10: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

10

Itrsquos Not About Blame

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The NSF ACES program is not about blame or finger pointing We are working with individuals departments and university leadership to ensure the transformation of the culture here at Case is sensitive to the variety of experiences and perspectives in our institution

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 11: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

11

Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award

bull Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES)

bull $35 Million Institutional Transformation Award

bull 2 Phases over 5 years bull Case is the first private institution to

receive award

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Let me explain a little bit about the Case NSF ADVANCE award So far Case is the only private institution to receive the transformation grant Academic Careers in Engineering and Science or ACES for short is a $35 million dollar award over five years The activities will take place in two phases and complete in 2008

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 12: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

12

ACES Organizational Chart

Beth McGeeFaculty Diversity Officer

Amanda ShafferDiversity Specialist

Resource Equity CommitteePatricia HigginsEleanor StollerCyrus Taylor

Senior ResearchAssociate Susan Perry

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine WeatherheadSchool of Management

Sue DykeProject Coordinator

External Advisory Board

ACES TeamInternal Advisory Board

College of Arts and Sciences

Donald FekeCo-PI

P Hunter PeckhamCo-PI

Mary BarkleyCo-PI

Diana BillimoriaCo-PI

Dorothy MillerCenter for Women

Lynn Singer Deputy ProvostPrinicpal InvestigatorAcademic Careers in

Engineering and Science (ACES)

Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)

Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Edward M Hundert John AndersonOffice of the President and the Provost

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Principal Investigator of the ACES grant is Lynn Singer The co-PIrsquos are Diana Billimoria from Organizational Behavior Hunter Peckham from Biomedical Engineering and Mary Barkley from Chemistry13 The Deans of the 4 schools are actively participating in implementing ACES and are part of the Steering Committee for ACES The monthly steering committee meetings that the Deans or their designates attend helps to guide and facilitate ACES activities and ensure buy in at the school level13 A Team of 14 faculty members from all over the University serves as an internal advisory board and an External Advisory Board comprised of 5 out of state members and 2 members from the local business community review the progress results and future plans over the life of the 5 year grant13 The Evaluation Team is developing Baseline Data for the Test Depts and for all S amp E depts They are also doing Interim evaluation of Coaching and Mentoring iniatives The Resource Equity Committee Cyrus Taylor is assisting the evaluation team in planning the studies amp reviewing the results13 The office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is represented by Beth McGee and myself We have created a Search Committee Toolkit and New Guidelines for hiring13 Annabel Bryan is the project Coordinator and handles the day to day operations of the iniatives the Fisk student and faculty exchange and applications for Distinguished Lectureships and Opportunity Grants

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 13: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

13

NSF Fundable Departments

Anthropology

Astronomy

Biology

Chemistry

GeologicalSciences

Mathematics

Physics

PoliticalScience

Psychology

Sociology

Statistics

Biomedical Eng

Chemical Eng

Civil Eng

Electrical Eng ampComputerScience

MacromolecularScience amp Eng

Materials Scienceamp Eng

Mechanical ampAerospace Eng

Anatomy

Biochemistry

Center for RNAMolecularBiology

Genetics

MolecularBiology ampMicrobiology

Neurosciences

Pharmacology

Physiology ampBiophysics

Economics

InformationSystems

Marketing ampPolicy Studies

OperationsResearch

OrganizationalBehavior

denotes Phase I Test Department

College of Arts amp Sciences Case Schoolof Engineering

School of Medicine Weatherhead Schoolof Management

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 14: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

14

ACES Goals and Objectives

bull Increase number of women at all academic levels

bull Stimulate department change

bull Transform campus-wide culture

bull Institutionalize transformation

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The overarching goal of the ACES program is to stimulate department change transform the campus wide culture and institutionalize this transformation by the end of the grant cycle

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 15: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

15

ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership

bull Deans accountable to Provost for institutional progress

bull Executive coaching for deans

bull 5 endowed chairs for senior women scientists and engineers (President Hundertrsquos fundraising commitment)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
At the Leadership level President Hundert has made a commitment to fundraise for 5 endowed chairs for women in S and E 13The Deans will be held accountable to the Provost on a number of measures a few of which are the increase in the of S amp E women faculty the of women in the candidate pool the women candidates invited to interview and the of women candidates offered jobs13Another part of the measure of institutional progress will be to 13Improve qualitative perceptions and ratings of climate13Increase resource equity for women faculty13And Increase the of women invited to campus through lectureships visiting profs etc13And faculty Development activities 13READ BELOW ONLY IF THERE IS A QUESTION13Faculty Development13Create and institutionalize coaching and mentoring and increase faculty participation Conduct relevant training workshops and events for all faculty and increase participation Create and utilize school level opportunity grants for the development of women and minorities1313

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 16: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

16

ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level

bull Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts)

bull Women faculty coaching amp mentoring (14 women faculty in test depts)

bull Networking events for deans chairs amp women faculty

bull Educational support amp faculty development for departments (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13As I stated earlier the four test chairs and faculty of the four test departments are receiving mentoring and executive coaches Networking events are planned for the Deans Chairs and Faculty through the office of the Provost and the Center for Women13Educational support and faculty development is available from ACES resources should a department need speaker or a facilitator for training

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 17: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

17

ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments

bull Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)

bull Opportunity grants (15 awards)

bull Faculty search committee support (4 departmentssearch committees)

bull Minority summer undergraduate research program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty member)

bull Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distinguished lectureships support visits to Case by 10 senior women scientists or engineers for mutual research and public lectures in the host department1313Opportunity grants for women in S and E support current or proposed projects and activities when other funding is difficult to find1313The student training will be conducted through the Center for Women and will train graduate and undergraduate students in the 4 test departments in gender bias stereotypes and power dynamics in the classroom13The minority pipeline initiative is in cooperation with Fisk University One SampE woman faculty member will visit a a year to build a strong relationship and provide role models for minority women students at Case13And undergraduates from Fisk will be sponsored each Summer to do research at Case 13

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 18: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

18

University Wide Iniatives

bull Search committee toolkit (online at wwwcaseeduadminaces)

bull Partner hiring policy

bull Center for Women events (online at httpwwwcaseeduprovostcenterforwomen)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
ACES sponsors an exchange of one SampE woman faculty member a year to build a strong relationship with Fisk and provide role models for minority women students at Case Professor Sanjukta Hota Department of Mathematics was the 2004 recipient1313And in cooperation with Health Careers Enhancement Program for Minorities and the Summer Program in Undergraduate Research ACES sponsors summer undergraduates Five students from Fisk University and one student from Edinboro University are spent the Summer 2004 doing research at Case 13

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 19: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

19

ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts

bull Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)bull Mechanical amp Aerospace

Engineering (Engineering)bull Organizational Behavior

(Management)bull Physiology amp Biophysics

(Medicine)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The four test departments in Phase One are Chemistry Mechanical amp Aerospace Engineering Organizational Behavior and Physiology amp Biophysics13All of the department chairs and women faculty members are receiving executive coaching and mentors in this phase

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 20: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

20

ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments

bull College of Arts and Sciencesndash Anthropologyndash Geological Sciencesndash Mathematicsndash Political Science

bull School of Engineeringndash Biomedical Engineeringndash Chemical Engineeringndash Electrical Engineering amp Computer Science

bull School of Medicinendash Biochemistryndash Molecular Biology and Microbiology

bull School of Managementndash Marketing and Policy Studies

Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Phase Two the best practices developed in Phase one will be extended to the remaining 27 NSF fundable departments Those departments are as follows

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 21: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

21

Recruitment Retention

Search Committee Toolkit Partner Hiring

Policy

Critical Mass

New Hiring Guidelines

Active Recruiting

Mentoring

Distinguished Lectureships Climate

Leadership Development

Coaching

Transparent Policies

Opportunity Grants

Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies

Student Training

Networking

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The recruitment strategies that ACES is engaged in are the development of the Search ommittee Tollkit the Distinguished Lectureships active recruiting and new Hiring Guidleines 13The retention stratagies are coaching mentoring networking opportunity grants developing transparent policies encouraging women for leadership roles and student training13The strategies that are most improtaant because they overlap in both recruitment and retention are the overall climate of the University the critical mass of women at the university and the availablity of assistance with partner hiring

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 22: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

22

University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost

bull Provost amp Deputy Provost review of annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty

bull Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund for hiring women amp faculty of color

bull A one-year extension of pre-tenure period after each live birth or adoption

bull Child care center for faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Provost and the Deputy Provost review the annual and mid-tenure evaluations of non-tenured faculty Our current faculty review process is intended to be carefully monitored by the deans so that each faculty member receives a clear and written evaluation periodically as well as adequate career guidance As part of the involvement of the Provostrsquos Office the office provides feedback to the deans about the process1313Although often under-utilized by Departments conducting searches a portion of the Provostrsquos Opportunity Fund has been set aside for use in for strategic hiring of under-represented women and faculty of color1313A faculty member who is the primary care-giving parent may request from the Provost a one-year extension of the pre-tenure period after each live birth or after each adoption (for specific details see IG6 of the Faculty Handbook) This policy has been utilized by a number of faculty and has been well received13

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 23: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

23

Q amp A

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 24: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Appendix of Supplementary Information

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 25: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

25

Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)

SampE Depts Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 111 (22) 27 (33) 138 (23)

Male 400 (78) 56 (67) 456 (77)

Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time Adjunct

Total

Female 727 (31) 508 (33) 1235 (32)

Male 1616 (69) 1029 (67) 2645 (68)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 26: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

26

Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)

SampE Tenure-track Status

Tenured In Tenure Track

Total (Tenured + In Tenure Track)

Non-Tenure Track

Female 37 37 74 (18) 15 (42)

Male 246 86 332 (82) 21 (58)

Total 406 36

Source Institutional Research ndash Human ResourcesCount is based on faculty paid through CASE only

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 27: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

27

PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)Tenure Awards SampE Departments University

Female 1 (7) 5 (19)

Male 13 (93) 21 (81)

Total 14 26Source Office of the Provost

Promoted to Professor

SampE Departments University

Female 2 (22) 10 (30)

Male 7 (78) 23 (70)

Total 9 33

Source Institutional Research ndash Human Resources

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 28: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

28

Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)

SampE Leadership Endowed Chair

Dept PampT Committee

Administrative Position

Female 8 (14) 17 (22) 9 (15)

Male 49 (86) 59 (78) 51 (85)

Total 57 76 60

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 29: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

29

Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Number of Women Faculty

_1159802521doc

013

13

10013

13

20013

13

30013

13

40013

13

50013

13

60013

13

70013

13

80013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 30: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

30

Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Faculty

image1wmf

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Percentage of Women Facult

y

_1159802563doc

013

13

513

13

1013

13

1513

13

2013

13

2513

13

3013

13

3513

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Percentage of Women Faculty13

13

13

13

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 31: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

31

Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

Academic Year

Number of Minority Faculty

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

African American

Asian American

Hispanic A

merican

Native American

Academic Year

Number of

Minority Faculty

_1159802750doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

African American13

13

Asian American13

13

Hispanic American13

13

Native American13

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Number of Minority Faculty13

13

13

13

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 32: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

32

Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

Female

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Excludin

g Medical School

_1159803340doc

Female

013

13

3013

13

6013

13

9013

13

12013

13

15013

13

18013

13

21013

13

24013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 33: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

33

Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

110

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Excluding Medical S

chool

_1159802969doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

11013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 34: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

34

Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Excluding M

edical School

_1159803586doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Excluding Medical School13

13

13

13

13

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 35: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

35

Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Professors Me

dical School

_1159803664doc

013

13

2013

13

4013

13

6013

13

8013

13

10013

13

12013

13

14013

13

16013

13

18013

13

20013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

13

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 36: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

36

Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

image1wmf

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Associate Professors Medical School

_1159803744doc

013

13

5013

13

10013

13

15013

13

20013

13

25013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Associate Professors Medical School13

13

13

13

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 37: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

37

Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical School

image1wmf

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

1999

-

2000

2000

-

2001

2001

-

2002

2002

-

2003

2003

-

2004

Academic Year

Tenured Faculty Medical Sc

hool

_1159803894doc

013

13

4013

13

8013

13

12013

13

16013

13

20013

13

24013

13

28013

13

32013

13

1999-200013

13

2000-200113

13

2001-200213

13

2002-200313

13

2003-200413

13

Academic Year13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

Tenured Faculty Medical School13

13

13

13

13

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 38: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

38

Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)

APS News The Back Page January 2000

Presenter
Presentation Notes
APS of PHDs earned by women in science and engineering by field13

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 39: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

39

0102030405060708090

100

female graduate studentsfemale faculty

Expected levels given 1987 pool Source NSF Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997

Perc

ent

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female graduate students and faculty in science and engineering 1987-199713

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 40: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

40

National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997

01020304050

Soci

alSc

ienc

es

Scie

nces

Engi

neer

ing

19871997 Source NSF

Report on Women Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering 2000

Perc

ent

National Percentages of Female Faculty

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF of female faculty in social sciences sciences and engineering in 1987 and 199713

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 41: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig 1

Source NSF Reports
1997
Figure 1 National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences 1987 and 1997
39
27

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Social Sciences
Sciences
Page 42: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig2a

Source NSF Reports
Expected levels given available pool
female graduate students
female faculty
Figure 2 National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering 1987 and 1998
39
18
47
27
135
3
19
11

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1987
Sciences 1997 Sciences 1997
Engineering 1987 Engineering 1987
Engineering 1997 Engineering 1997
Page 43: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig4a

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4a Partner Information
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
19
6
12
11
55
19
40
25
41
30
13
29

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
no partner no partner no partner
partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment partner part-time or no employment
partner UM faculty partner UM faculty partner UM faculty
partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment partner other full-time employment
Page 44: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig4b

ab Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 4b Partner Employment
a
b
a
b
11
55
19
89
45
81

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time partner not employed or employed part-time
no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time no partner or partner employed full-time
Page 45: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig5

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 5 Service
a
bc
a
b
c
385
317
331
079
076
072
323
287
283

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year number of committees served on each year
number of committees chaired number of committees chaired number of committees chaired
importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position importance of having a leadership position
Page 46: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig6

ab Matching symbols denonte statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=46)
male scientistsengineers (N=28)
female social scientists (N=21)
Figure 7 Mentoring Among Assistant Professors
a
bc
a
b
c
237
468
261
32105
09474
14444

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept number of male mentors in same UM dept
number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring number of areas of non-mentoring
Page 47: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig7

abcMarching symbols denotes statistically significant difference plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
percentage
Figure 7 Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment in Past 5 Years at UM
a
b
c
a
b
c
415
4
356
197
51
111
381
209
288

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination experienced job related gender discrimination
experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention experienced unwanted sexual attention
others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
Page 48: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig8

abcdef Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05)
c
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 8 Department Climate as Positive Tolerant Egalitarian
ab
cd
ef
a
c
e
b
d
f
31145
35103
33801
35413
38241
37939
31319
38424
36192

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
positive environment positive environment positive environment
tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity tolerant of diversity
gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere gender egalitarian atmosphere
Page 49: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig9

abc Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (plt05 or higher)
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department ClimateTokenism and Surveillance
ab
c
a
c
b
27876
18889
23413
29237
24578
26308

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
felt tokenism felt tokenism felt tokenism
felt surveillance felt surveillance felt surveillance
Page 50: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Fig10

abcd Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences plt05
female scientistsengineers (N=135)
male scientistsengineers (N=100)
female social scientists (N=73)
Figure 10 Department Chair
ab
cd
e
a
c
b
d
e
32853
36793
37381
31513
35485
37566
3509
3789
4345

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
chair is fair chair is fair chair is fair
chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment chair creates a positive environment
chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity chair shows commitment to diversity
Page 51: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Figx

Males
Females
Figure x Percent of Males and Females at Each Rank by School 2000-01
78
22
84
16
95
5
80
20
77
23
96
4
74
26
79
21
89
11

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Assistant ProfessorEngineering Assistant ProfessorEngineering
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
Assistant ProfessorLSampA Assistant ProfessorLSampA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Full Professor Full Professor
AssistantMedicine AssistantMedicine
Associate Associate
Full Full
Page 52: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Sheet2

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Table 3 Professional Experience
Matching symbols ab denote statistically significant differences at the level of ple05 women scientists N=135 men scientists N=100 women social scientists N=73
mean SD mean SD Mean SD
Age 4652a 844 4919a 1111 464 963
Time since highest degree 356 a 158 444 a 214 327 189
Time since first UM appointment 348 a 162 412 a 218 307 177
Percentage hired in last ten years 548 43 685
Percentage at full professor rank 341 28 288
Percentage at associate professor rank 363 17 329
Percentage at assistant professor rank 296 55 349
1=2000-1 2=1995-1999 3=1994-1990 4=1985-1989 5=1980-1984 6=1975-1979 7=1970-1974 8=1965-1969 9=1960-1964
Page 53: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Chart1

mean score
412
358
325

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
highest rated items
middle rated items
lowest rated items
Page 54: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Chart4

highest rated items
lowest rated items
Figure x Careeer Satisfaction Ratings
45
419
396
382
347
34
316
299

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
students value as mentoradvisor students value as mentoradvisor
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students Sense of being valued as a teacher by students
contribute to discipline contribute to discipline
collaborate with other faculty collaborate with other faculty
social interaction with unitdept members social interaction with unitdept members
valued by unitdept for scholarship valued by unitdept for scholarship
Current salary compared with UM colleagues Current salary compared with UM colleagues
Balance of professional and personal life Balance of professional and personal life
Page 55: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Chart2

1987
1997
National Percentages of Female Faculty in the Social Sciences Sciences and Engineering 1987-1997
22
39
18
27
3
11

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Social Sciences Social Sciences
Sciences Sciences
Engineering Engineering
Page 56: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

Sheet1

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Social Sciences Sciences Engineering
1987 22 18 3
1997 39 27 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 87 81
male faculty 82 73 97 89
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
female graduate students 39 47 135 19
female faculty 18 27 3 11
Sciences 1987 Sciences 1997 Engineering 1987 Engineering 1997
male graduate students 61 53 88 81
female graduate students 39 47 12 19
male faculty 91 73 97 93
female faculty 18 27 3 7
Sciences Students 1987 Sciences Faculty 1987 Sciences Students 1997 Sciences Faculty 1997 Engineering Students 1987 Engineering Facutly 1987 Engineering Students 1997 Engineering Facutly 1997
males 61 82 53 73 88 97 81 93
females 39 18 47 27 12 3 19 7
number of committees served on each year number of committees chaired importance of having a leadership position
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 385 079 323
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 317 076 287
female social scientists (N=73) 331 072 283
number of male mentors in same UM dept number of areas of non-mentoring
female scientistsengineers (N=46) 237 32105
male scientistsengineers (N=28) 468 09474
female social scientists (N=21) 261 14444
experienced job related gender discrimination experienced unwanted sexual attention others told them of unwanted sexual attention
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 415 197 381
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 4 51 209
female social scientists (N=73) 356 111 288
felt tokenism felt surveillance
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 27876 29237
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 18889 24578
female social scientists (N=73) 23413 26308
chair is fair chair creates a positive environment chair shows commitment to diversity
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 32853 31513 3509
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 36793 35485 3789
female social scientists (N=73) 37381 37566 4345
no partner partner part-time or no employment partner UM faculty partner other full-time employment
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 19 11 40 30
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 6 55 25 13
female social scientists (N=73) 12 19 41 29
positive environment tolerant of diversity gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 31145 35413 31319
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 35103 38241 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 33801 37939 36192
partner not employed or employed part-time no partner or partner employed full-time
female scientistsengineers (N=135) 11 89
male scientistsengineers (N=100) 55 45
female social scientists (N=73) 19 81
gender egalitarian atmosphere
female scientists (N=135) 31319
male scientists (N=100) 38424
female social scientists (N=73) 36192
Assistant Professors Associate Professors Full Professors
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Engineering 78 22 84 16 95 5
LSampA 80 20 77 23 96 4
Medicine 74 26 79 21 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Males Females Males Females Males Females
Assistant Professors 78 22 80 20 74 26
Associate Professors 84 16 77 23 79 21
Full Professors 95 5 96 4 89 11
Engineering LSampA Medicine
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Assistant Associate Full
Males 78 84 95 80 77 96 74 79 89
Females 22 16 5 20 23 4 26 21 11
mean score
highest rated items 412
middle rated items 358
lowest rated items 325
highest rated items lowest rated items
students value as mentoradvisor 45
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students 419
contribute to discipline 396
collaborate with other faculty 382
social interaction with unitdept members 347
valued by unitdept for scholarship 34
Current salary compared with UM colleagues 316
Balance of professional and personal life 299
Page 57: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994Year

SampE BachelorsSampE MastersSampE Doctorates

Assume 7 years post-BABS to earn a PhD eg in 1988 women were 40 of SampE Bachelors in 1995 they were 30 of DoctoratesNational Science FoundationDivision of Science Resources Studies Survey of Graduate Students and Post doctorates in Science and Engineering

The Leaky PipelinePe

rcen

t

Presenter
Presentation Notes
NSF the leaky pipeline 1966-199413

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 58: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

42

Some Aspects of the Problem

bull Men and women rating hellipCVrsquos give lower ratings when they believe work is a womanrsquos

bull Student ratings ndash tougher on womenbull MIT Resources Study found that

bull ldquoMarginalization increases as women progress accompanied by differences in salary space awardsrdquo

bull Problems especially flourish in departments with non-democratic practices hellip cronyism and unequal access to resources

Source Association of American Medical Colleges

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 59: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

43

Perception vs RealitySince many of the problems encountered by female faculty are minor this emphasis on remedies to improve the climate is an over-reaction

Over time small disadvantages accumulate into significant ones that have large impacts on career success and satisfaction

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 60: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

44

ldquohellipthe success rate of female scientists applying for postdoctoral fellowships at the MRC during the 1990rsquos has been less than half that of male applicantsrdquo C Wennerarings amp A WoldNepotism and sexism in peer-review Nature387341-343 1997

Average rating of applicantsas a function of theirscientific productivity

200

225

250

275

300

Women

M en

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 gt99

Total impact

One impact point =one paper in a journal withan impact factor of one

Co

mp

ete

nce S

co

re

n=62

n=52

Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 61: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

45

Evaluation and Gender BiasWomen applying for a postdoctoral fellowship had to be 25 times more productive to receive the same competence score as the average male applicant

(Wenneras amp Wold (1997) Nature 387 341)

University psychology professors prefer 21 to hire ldquoBrianrdquo over ldquoKarenrdquo even when the application packages are identical

(Steinpreis Anders amp Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles 41 509)

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Evaluation and gender bias13

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 62: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

46

Rating of proposalsbull Better for men than women at all 3 agenciesbull Strongly related to perceived track record

and being known to reviewer

Funding of proposalsbull Gender predicted scientific rating and in

turn rating predicted funding

Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH NSF NEH in 1994

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 63: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

47

Comparison of letters for male and female applicants all of whom got jobs at this institution (Wayne State University)

0

5

10

15

20

25

wDoubt

Raiser

wMinimalAssurance

womenmen

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

Presenter
Presentation Notes
13Doubt raisers negative language hedges potentially negative unexplained faint praise and irrelevancies (Examples ldquoShe has a challenging personalityrdquo ldquoIt appears her health is stablerdquo ldquoshe is close to my wiferdquo )1313Minimal assurances lacking in relevant features not including commitment and relationship -- are shorter lack specificity of focus and record of applicant evaluative comments and comparison of traits and accomplishments 131313Letters for men were on average 253 words and 227 words for women1313300 letters examined Recommenders ndash 85 male 12 female Letters for 71 male 29 female

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 64: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

48

Distinctive content following possessives (hisher)

Trix F and Psenka C (2003) ldquoExploring the color of glass Letters of recommendation for female and male medical facultyrdquo Discourse amp Society Vol 14(2)191-220 2003

0

5

10

15

20

25Women

Men

Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)

Num

ber o

f men

tions

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Number of mentions of HER PERSONAL LIFE and HIS PERSONAL LIFE1313HER CV HIS CV13etc

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 65: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

49

Egan M L amp Bendick M Jr (1994) International business careers in the United States Salaries advancement and male-female differences International Journal of Human Resource Management 5 35-50

Factor Men Women

BA adds $28000 adds $9000

ldquofast trackrdquo designation adds $10900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9200 subtracts $7700

choosing international work adds $5300 subtracts $4200

speaking another language adds $2600 subtracts $5100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5600 adds $3500

frequent travel adds $ 3200 adds $6300

Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 66: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

50

bull Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about sex differences that guide everyonersquos perceptions and behaviors

bull Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define ldquoaveragerdquo members of a group

Men are instrumental task-oriented competent

Women are nurturing emotional and care about relationships

bull Both men and women have the same schemas

Source Virgina Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

What are Gender Schemas

Presenter
Presentation Notes
Add valians explanation of what schemas are and why there are necessary

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 67: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

51

Gender schemas

Lack of critical mass

Accumulation of disadvantage

Evaluationbias

Performance is underestimated

Lowered success rate

Presenter
Presentation Notes
The feedback diagram illustrating how the small number of women and gender schemas bounce off each other and with the filter of evaluation bias lead to underestimated performance which in turn leads to the accumulation of disadvantage which lowers womenrsquos success rate ndash which loops back around into the original problems of the schemas and small numbers

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 68: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

52

Why So Slow The Advancement of Women by Virginia Valian Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI of the Gender Equity Project Hunter College (CUNY)

bull Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading

bull Read by ACES participants (chairs deans coaches etc)

bull Discusses gender schema definition mountains out of molehills how bias operates

How It Happens

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 69: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

53

Molehills become Mountains

Any one slight may seem minor but small imbalances and disadvantages accrue and accumulate into a mountain of disadvantage

ldquoMountains are molehills piled one on top of the otherrdquo

Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 70: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

54

Perception vs RealityDiscrimination is only practiced by a small set of ignorant people

Research shows that everyone -whether male or female -perceives and treats women differently from men

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases
Page 71: Provost’s Leadership Retreat...Academic Careers in Engineering and Science, or ACES for short, is a $3.5 million dollar award over five years對. The activities will take place in

55

How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

We view ourselves as fair and impartialWe believe advancement is merit-based We admire the competence of some women which seems to show that we are free of gender biasSome women though the exception make it to the top appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically fair and that truly able women succeedIt is hard to remember that an exception is just that an atypical event and therefore actually evidence that the norm is differentSource Virgimia Valian 1998 Why So Slow The Advancement of Women MIT Press

  • Slide Number 1
  • Retreat Objectives
  • Retreat Agenda
  • What is the Problem
  • Academic Transformation is Possible
  • How Close Was Your Answer
  • Areas of Concern at Case
  • 2003-04 Full-time SampE Faculty
  • Women Faculty Report That Casersquos Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey)
  • Slide Number 10
  • Casersquos NSF ADVANCE Award
  • ACES Organizational Chart
  • NSF Fundable Departments
  • ACES Goals and Objectives
  • ACES Iniatives Senior Leadership
  • ACES IniativesSchool and Department Level
  • ACES InitiativesAll S amp E Departments
  • University Wide Iniatives
  • ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts
  • ACES Phase II - Extension of Best Practices to 10 Departments
  • Overview of ACES Initiatives Casersquos Recruitment and Retention Strategies
  • University Mechanisms for Support Office of the President and the Provost
  • Slide Number 23
  • Appendix of Supplementary Information
  • Faculty Composition in SampE Departments at Case (2003-04)
  • Women in SampE ndash Tenure Status at Case (2003-04)
  • PampT Awards in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Academic Leadership in SampE Depts at Case (2003-04)
  • Growth in Number of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Percentage of Women Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Minority Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
  • Growth in Number of Professors at Case 1999- 2004
  • Growth in Number of Associate Professors at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case 1999-2004
  • Growth in School of Medicine Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Associate Professors (1999-2004)
  • Growth in School of Medicine Tenured Faculty (1999-2004)
  • Percent of PhDs Earned by Women by Field (National)
  • National Percentages of Female Graduate Students and Faculty in SampE 1987 amp 1997
  • National Percentages of Female Faculty
  • The Leaky Pipeline
  • Some Aspects of the Problem
  • Perception vs Reality
  • Gender Bias in Funding Postdoctoral Fellowships
  • Evaluation and Gender Bias
  • Study of Three US Federal Agencies Using Peer Review
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women
  • Letters of Recommendation Differ for Men and Women (contrsquod)
  • Examples of factors that contributed to determining salaries 14 helped men more 2 helped women more
  • What are Gender Schemas
  • Lowered success rate
  • How It Happens
  • Molehills become Mountains
  • Perception vs Reality
  • How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own Biases

Provost’s Corner - Potsdam

Osprey aircraft of the aces 004 - korean war aces

Adverse Childhood Experiences · 2020. 1. 27. · ACEs 45% 5% 9% 20% 21% ACEs are common 0 ACEs 930,835 Iowans 1 ACE 440,458 Iowans 2-3 ACEs 392,712 Iowans 4-5 ACEs 194,550 Iowans

ACES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGfloridatransportationplan.org/pdf/August 21 2019 - ACES...ACES SUBCOMMITTEE CHARGE 5 Discuss themes, trends, and planning implications of ACES for transportation

Fighter Aces

Aces presentation

PANZER ACES CAMOUFLAGE COLORS Ref. 70179 …€¦ · Carta de colores Panzer Aces / Panzer Aces color chart 16 Colores Camuflaje Panzer Aces / 16 Panzer Aces Camouflage Colors Estuche

ACES - What is ACES And Who is Using It

ACES Implications

Interim Provost’s Report Faculty Senate November 11, 2014

Interim Provost’s Community Forum #1provost.ku.edu/.../CommunityForum_9-16-19_FINAL.pdf · 9/16/2019  · Interim Provost’s Community Forum #1. Beren Petroleum Conference Center

DR. LESTER SANDRES RÁPALO THE PROVOST’S REPORT

Fall 2012 Provost’s Retreat August 17, 2012

Missouri State University’s Provost’s Academic ...€¦ · Missouri State University’s Provost’s Academic Advising Council Annual Report for 2016‐2017 The purpose of this

Missouri S&T Provost’s eFellows Program

Provost’s Report George W. Hynd September 10, 2013

Provost’s Update Faculty Senate September 15, 2015

NSF ACES Provost’s Leadership Retreat

2017 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 2017 PROVOST’S ... · 2017 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 3 ... Table 1: Design of the POGIL-based Lab Description Old lab

Fever - ACES

Curriculum Vitae - ACES Center · ACES CV Page 1 . ACES Curriculum Vitae . ABAZA Center for Engineering ACES CO. ACES CV Page 2 “Table of Contents” Subject Page Mission. 1 . Development

ACES Alumni Association · 2016-06-16 · ACES Alumni Association ACES Award of Merit Friend of ACES The ACES Award of Merit was held on April 11, 2015 on cam-pus. Award winners had

PROVOST’S MONTHLY REPORT

PROVOST’S QUARTERLY REPORT - …provost.virginia.edu/sites/...Quarterly-Report_Q3_FY2017_Final_508.pdf · PROVOST’S QUARTERLY REPORT Architecture receives major ... Foundation

Provost’s Professional Development Series California State University Northridge

PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS 2015 APPLICATION · 2015-03-11 · 1 FREAR_MURDOCH-KITT_EXPLORATORY_2015.docx PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS 2015 APPLICATION I. INSTRUCTIONS

2018 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 2018 PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS ... · 2018-03-20 · 2018 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 1 2018 PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS

PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS CALL FOR … · 1 2019 PROVOST’S LEARNING INNOVATIONS GRANTS CALL FOR PROPOSALS The Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants (PLIG) program

The Dundee Approach to addressing ACEs - NHS Health Scotland · 2018-03-26 · Strategic approach to addressing ACEs Mapping existing work on addressing ACEs ‘Addressing ACEs in

Www.case.edu/admin/aces Provost’s Leadership Retreat 26 October 2004

2017 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 2017 PROVOST’S … · 2017 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 7 STATEMENT OF CREATIVITY (three paragraphs maximum) Provide a brief

Provost’s Annual Report on Cases of Academic Discipline

2017 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 2017 PROVOST’S ... Robyn.pdf · 2017 Provost’s Learning Innovations Grants 5 STATEMENT OF UTILITY (two pages maximum) Using the evaluation

2019 IMPACT REPORT...1 ACEs 26% 2-3 ACEs 12% 4+ ACEs 180 18% +350+310+160= 1 ACEs 35% 2-3 ACEs 31% 4-5 ACEs 16% 6+ ACEs General Population Program Youth 6th & 7th grade: As youth enter

Osprey aircraft of the aces 015 - soviet aces of ww2