1. Sex comparisons among science faculty at Hunter College Hunter College Gender Equity Project & Provost’s Office 2007 Science Faculty Survey Department perceptions, social networks, and procedural knowledge

2. Background  Hunter does well in gender equity with respect to major outcomes  Female and male faculty in the sciences fare similarly in salary tenure and promotion awarding of distinguished professorships and named chairs

3. Background  But outcome fairness is not the primary predictor of how people perceive fairness overall in their institutions  Two other types of fairness play more important roles interactional fairness 1 – how respectfully people are treated on a day-to-day basis procedural fairness 2 – clear and well- justified policies 1. Bies, R.J. & Shapiro, D.L. (1988). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199-218 2. Lind, E.A & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. NY: Plenum

4. Purpose of Science Faculty Survey  Examine subtle measures of interactional and procedural fairness college life department life professional networks resource allocation and responsibility

5. Demographics  52% of science faculty completed the consent form (101/195)  46% of science faculty provided information about their sex (89/195)  49% of science faculty who responded were women (38/77) and 35% were men (41/118)

6. Demographics (Cont.) WomenMen Assist.Assoc. Full Assist. Assoc.Full Natural Science Pop. N SFS N 11 6 4242 24 10 7 16 6 45 8 % in SFS sample 555042703818 Social Science Pop. N SFS N 10 5 12 7 16 8 6363 13 5 28 12 % in SFS sample 505850 3843 Biology Chemistry Computer Sci. Geography Math & Stat. Physics & Astro Anthropology Economics Political Sci. Psychology Sociology

7. Results  College Life  Department Life  Professional Networks  Resource Allocation and Responsibility

8. College Life: Importance of teaching

9. College Life: Importance of research

10. College Life: Importance of committee work

11. College Life Male and female science faculty equally find a great deal of personal meaning in their work  Women=4.72 (.44); Men=4.62 (.50) are equally identified with Hunter College  Women=3.52 (.94); Men=3.86 (.85) 1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly Agree

12. College Life Male and female science faculty have similar judgments about their ability to spend enough time on the aspects of work that they find most important  Women=2.63 (.98); Men=2.68 (1.02) satisfaction with the Offices of Facilities Management & Planning  Women=2.89 (.85); Men=3.18 (.80) 1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly Agree

13. Example: I receive/d enough feedback on my progress toward tenure/promotion. College Life: Satisfaction with tenure and promotion t(1,66) = 2.29, p = 0.03

14. Example: Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my current job. College Life: Job Satisfaction t(1,75) = 1.84, p = 0.07

15. College Life Summary Compared to men, women are less satisfied with tenure and promotion processes satisfied with their jobs

16. Department Life Male and female science faculty are similarly neutral about their department chairs  Women = 2.89 (.85); Men =3.18 (.80) equally report feeling respected in department meetings  Women = 3.74 (.70); Men = 3.93 (.44) report having similar influence over what happens in their departments  Women = 3.28 (.73); Men = 3.22 (.85) 1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly Agree

17. Department Life: Inclusion & Belonging Example: I feel like I “fit” in my department. t(1,69) = 2.89, p < 0.01

18. Department Life: Collegiality Example: Communication is good among the people in my department. t(1,76) = 3.10, p < 0.01

19. Example: There are people in your department who have used influence to support your advancement. Department Life: Support t(1,69) = 1.78, p = 0.08

20. Example: When I make a request it is completed in full. Department Life: Evaluation of Department Staff t (1,67) = 3.14, p < 0.01

21. Department Life Summary Men report more and women report less sense of inclusion and belonging collegiality support from colleagues satisfaction with department staff

22. Professional Networks: Talk to chairs  72% of men and 84% of women report talking “almost never” about teaching  75% of men and 82% of women report talking “almost never” about research  92% of men and 95% of women report talking “almost never” about tenure and promotion

23. Professional Networks: Talk to faculty outside Hunter College  39% of men and 35% of women report talking “at least once a week” about research  65% of men and 73% of women report talking “almost never” about teaching  89% of men and 95% of women report talking “almost never” about tenure and promotion

24. Professional Networks: Talk to undergraduate students  45% of men and 49% of women report talking “at least once a week” about teaching  56% of men and 41% of women report talking “at least once a week” about research

25. Professional Networks: How often do you talk about teaching with Hunter faculty? χ 2 = 11.43, p < 0.01

26. Professional Networks: How often do you talk about research with Hunter faculty? χ 2 = 5.21, p = 0.07

27. Professional Networks  Collaborate on grants or research with chairs 66% of men and 80% of women report having never been asked by their chair to collaborate 91% of men and 90% of women report never asking their chair to collaborate  Collaborate on grants and research with colleagues 61% of men and 56% of women report having been asked to collaborate with colleagues more than once 39% of men and 53% of women report having asked colleagues to collaborate more than once

28. Professional Networks: How much recognition do you get for teaching?

29. Professional Networks: How much recognition do you get for research?

30. Professional Networks: How much recognition do you get for committee work?

31. Professional Networks Summary Compared to men, women talk about teaching and research with colleagues less often equally ask and are asked to collaborate on grants and research with chairs and colleagues report less recognition for teaching, research and committee work

32. Resource Allocation and Responsibility

34. Rules and Procedures Summary  Men and women are equally satisfied with the office and lab space they receive and are equally dissatisfied with the amount of TAs and course load they receive  Rules and procedures for distributing resources and responsibilities in departments are more transparent to men than to women

35. Overall Summary: Areas of equal satisfaction Male and female science faculty equally find teaching, research and committee work to be important find a great deal of personal meaning in their work identify with Hunter College feel respected in department meetings influence what happens in their departments ask and are asked to collaborate on grants and research with chairs and colleagues

36. Overall Summary: Areas of unequal satisfaction Compared to men, women are less satisfied with tenure and promotion are less satisfied with their jobs in general report less inclusion, collegiality, and support in their departments have less discussion with Hunter faculty about teaching, research, and committee work report less recognition for teaching, research, and committee work

37. Recommendations Administrators, chairs, and senior faculty should: solicit and listen equally to everyone’s views and opinions create settings that encourage colleagues and department chairs to interact with each other justify, clarify, and codify department rules and procedures for the distribution of resources and responsibilities nominate faculty for awards and prizes and publicize faculty achievements

38. Soliciting views and opinions At all meetings, make sure that all ideas are solicited and are equally carefully considered: circulate agendas before department meetings and ask faculty for additions consider having facilitators, on a rotating basis, to ensure that all voices are heard if someone tries to express an idea in a meeting and is interrupted or ignored, make sure that that person’s opinion is given time

39. Create opportunities for professional networks  Hold brown bags and luncheons in which faculty can discuss their research, teaching, and service  Assign space so that faculty with similar interests can easily interact  Have a chair or a senior colleague reach out to faculty who seem alienated or marginalized

40. Why it matters  People need the components of interactional fairness a sense of inclusion influence a voice which is heard  People perceive organizations to be more fair when the components of interactional fairness are in place

41. Clarify rules and procedures  Spell out policies and procedures in clear, unambiguous terms  Chairs, senior faculty, and administrators should be approachable, available, and willing to answer questions about policies and procedures  Create and distribute specific written guidelines to all faculty regarding tenure and promotion and rules and procedures for distributing resources and responsibilities

42. Why it matters  People need the components of procedural fairness knowledge about how resources and responsibilities are distributed and the justifications knowledge about how the tenure and promotion process works and the justifications

43. Awards and achievements  Nominate faculty for awards and prizes  Publicize faculty awards, prizes, grants, and other achievements to other faculty within department to dean, provost, and president

44. Why it matters  Recognition by colleagues improves individuals' attachment to institution

45. End