1. Conversation Starters: How would you describe your department’s and college’s cultures around service? How would you describe the university’s culture around service?

2. Culture Change at CSU: Valuing Service Mary StrombergerStephanie Clemons President, Faculty CouncilVice Chair, Faculty Council Kathy PickeringAnton Betten Vice Provost for Undergraduate AffairsChair, Committee on Teaching & Gwen Gorzelsky Learning Executive Director, Ria Vigil The Institute for Learning & TeachingOffice of the Vice President for Learning Diversity Tools for Equitable Faculty Evaluations

3. Workshop Overview Faculty Council Context Service: Value & Impact at CSU Research on Faculty Service Inequities Small-Group Discussions: Service experiences? Service benefits? Service rewards and recognition? Large-Group Discussion

4. Overview: Faculty Service Inequities All faculty members of color: In 2007: 18.2% of all faculty positions; 17.4% of associate professorships; 13.3% of full professorships In 2011: 20.7% of all faculty positions; 20.4% of associate professorships; 15.5% of full professorships In 2013 women held: 48.4% of tenure-track positions 37.5% of tenured positions In 2014 non-tenure-track positions held by: 32.5% of female faculty members 19.6% of male faculty members In 2011 full professorships: 75% occupied by men; 25% by women Marginal increases for women in preceding decades

5. Three Studies: Faculty Service Inequities National Study: 1,080 non-profit colleges & Universities; 35,000 faculty members, 2003- 04 Nationwide, across disciplines: women 10% less likely to attain full professor, when controlling for research productivity, educational background, institution type, race, ethnicity, and nationality Modern Language Association Study: English Department faculty nationally, 2006 Women less likely to be promoted to full professor When women do reach full professor, it takes one to three years longer (longest at doctoral universities) Study of STEM tenured and tenure-track women at Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006 Criteria for promotion to full professor ambiguous

6. Stanford Study: Associate Professors Males of Color White Males Females of Color White Females University Service 9 hrs./wk.5 hrs./wk.12 hrs./wk. Service to Profession 8 hrs./wk.6 hrs./wk. 5 hrs./wk. Mentoring9 hrs./wk.8 hrs./wk.14 hrs./wk.11 hrs./wk.

7. AAUP Study: 350 Associate Professors Male More likely to be promoted to full professor Promoted more quickly 50% in major service roles Service roles in research or graduate education 64 work hours per week Female Less likely to be promoted to full professor Promoted more slowly 75% in major service roles Service roles in undergraduate education (longer to full professor) 64 work hours per week

8. AAUP Study: Work Hours Apportioned ActivityMale Assoc. Profs.Female Assoc. Profs Research37% of work hours (7.5 more hours/week) 25% of work hours (7.5 fewer hours/week) Teaching1 less hour/week1 more hour/week Mentoring2 fewer hours/week2 more hours/week Service, Total5 fewer hours/week5 more hours/week Service to Profession5.4 hours/week Service to College/University 7 hours/week11.6 hours/week

9. AAUP & Stanford Studies: Implications & Recommendations Women Faculty Members’ Perceptions Pressured into service, which is devalued in promotion reviews Guilt that others would be pressured into extra work prompted accepting service assignments Stanford Study Recommendations Ensure equal P&T standards Raise awareness of implicit bias Mentoring programs AAUP Recommendations Ensure that all tenure- track faculty members contribute equal service efforts Ensure that promotion procedures reward service adequately Publicly reward service, mentoring, and teaching achievements

10. Small-Group Discussions Have you experienced inequities in distribution and reward of service assignments? What benefits has your department and/or college received from service? How might the promotion and tenure system be revised to value and reward service?

11. Large- Group Discussion Tools for evaluating service? Strategies to communicate and raise awareness? Other changes needed to promote equitable service evaluations?