Transcript Document
Georgia Tech-NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Program
Mary Lynn Realff, Director and Co-PI March 31, 2005
NSF ADVANCE at Ga Tech
NSF’s Goal The goal of the NSF ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation Program is to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce. Ga Tech’s Objective The NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Program at Georgia Tech takes an integrated approach to institutional factors that supports the full participation and advancement of women, and provides a model of best practices in academic science and engineering.
Program Initiatives
• • • • •
Inter-college network of professorships Collect and use resource data for equity and development of best practices Hold annual retreats of women in science & engineering, school chairs, deans, Provost Strengthen and extend the scope & impact of family-friendly policies Institutionalize training in evaluation for P&T committees
A Year in Review
•
GT hosted a national conference 250 participants
•
Networks were further developed through Professorships and cross college activities
–
Research productivity and performance
– – – – –
Grant writing workshops Mentoring Career coaching Work/family ‘balance’ WST/ADVANCE co-sponsored events
•
Dissemination of policies/procedures
–
Active service modified duties
–
ADEPT instrument developed and available on web became part of formal RPT process
Significant Accomplishment: ADEPT
Computer Instrument to Reduce Bias in Evaluation Awareness of Decisions in Evaluating Promotion & Tenure • Interactive learning tool • Identification of institute best practices • Fictional P&T case studies • Interactive P&T meeting GT Promotion and Tenure ADVANCE Committee • Scholarship on bias • GT ADVANCE research & surveys • PTAC report & surveys
A Year in Review
• • •
Research expanded to other universities and more in-depth study of GT female faculty Third year external review of the program First female Regents Professor
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Female Faculty by Rank
Assistant Professor Professor Associate Professor Regents Professor 1% 18 % 21 % 27 % 29 % 33 % 42 % 40 % 40 % 49 % 97-98 38 % 00-01 33 % 03-04 30 % Current
160 140 120
Female Faculty Flux Chart
Regents Prof essor Prof essor Associate Prof essor Assistant Prof essor
124 120 135 38 142 42 144 42 33 28 100 80 51 52 55 55 57 60 40 20 0 41 39 42 44 43 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Academic Year 2003-2004 2004-2005
160 140 120 100
Female Faculty Flux Chart
Regents Prof essor Prof essor Associate Prof essor Assistant Prof essor
124 120 135 38 142 1 42 144 42 33 28 3 3 4 3 6 80 57 51 55 55 52 60 3 40 20 4 41 7 39 6 42 44 6 43 0 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Academic Year 2003-2004 2004-2005 Up - Prom otions
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Female Faculty Flux Chart
Regents Prof essor Prof essor
1
Associate Prof essor Assistant Prof essor
124 120 1 28 33 3 6 135 2 38 3 3 142 1 42 4 1 144 1 42 3 4 3 55 3 55 57 6 51 2 52 4 4 41 7 9 39 6 11 42 6 3 44 11 6 43
In - Hires Out - Retirements, Resignations, Terminations Up - Promotions
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Academic Year 2003-2004 2004-2005
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 6
Female Faculty Flux Chart
Regents Prof essor Prof essor Associate Prof essor Assistant Prof essor
124 120 1 1 28 1 33 3 6 2 135 2 38 3 3 142 1 42 4 2 2 1 144 1 42 3 4 3 5 3 55 51 3 55 3 57 2 52 2 6 4 4 41 6 7 9 39 4 1 1 42 2 6 3 44 1 11 43 6 1
In - Hires Out - Retirements, Resignations, Terminations Up - Promotions
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Academic Year 2003-2004 2004-2005
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Female Faculty Flux Chart
Regents Prof essor Prof essor Associate Prof essor Assistant Prof essor
124 120 1 1 28 1/0 33 3 6 135 0/2 2 38 3 0/0 3 142 1 42 4 6 51 0/0 2 52 0/2 3 55 4 6 4 7 41 0/1 9 39 0/4 11 42 1/2 3 55 3 1/1 6 44 0/2 1 144 1 42 1/2 3 0/2 4 57 6 0/1 11 43 0/5 1/5
In - Hires Out - Retirements/ Resignations+ Terminations Up - Promotions
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Academic Year 2003-2004 2004-2005
800 700 600 500
Regent s Pr of essor Pr of essor Associat e Pr of essor Assist ant Pr of essor
685 2 9 330 7/8 11
Male Faculty Flux Chart
744 695 2 712 1/ 0 2 22 1 12/6 6 743 1/0 1 11/5 17 17/5 13/4 357 336 363 331 400 300 8 18 193 2/1 9 10 194 12 5/8 12 191 7/6 14 19 192 1/8 6 18 192 2/3 200 100 15 38 133 15 0/10 32 139 10 1/10 31 152 0/8 32 15 161 0/8 15 17 153 0/6 0 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005
In - Hires Out - Retirements/ Resignations+ Terminations Up - Promotions
Collaboratively Set Expectations and Create Solutions
Identify best practices Identify barriers to success Make recommendations
Conference Breakout groups
Feedback to next year Advantages – People give you better ideas when they know you are going to implement them – People “buy in” when they have contributed to the solution – Format gives a good balance of “complaining” with generation of “actions” Outcomes – Faculty and administrators develop solutions together – Group interaction builds networks & leverages best practices across campus Implement their recommendations
We need your feedback
• • •
Conference survey Participation in discussion break out groups Experience with ADEPT instrument
Program Initiatives
• • • • •
Inter-college network of professorships Collect and use resource data for equity and development of best practices Hold annual retreats of women in science & engineering, school chairs, deans, Provost Strengthen and extend the scope & impact of family-friendly policies Institutionalize training in evaluation for P&T committees