Transcript NSF ADVANCE Research Program Mary Frank Fox Co-Principal Investigator Georgia Tech ADVANCE Conference March 2006

NSF ADVANCE Research Program
Mary Frank Fox
Co-Principal Investigator
Georgia Tech ADVANCE Conference
March 2006
OUTLINE
I.
II.
III.
IV.
GT Advance Research Program
GT Follow-Up Survey
GT Follow-Up Findings and Implications
Conclusions
Research Team
I. GT ADVANCE Research Program
Research Components
A. Survey of GT Faculty
Perceptions, Needs, and
Experiences 2002/2003
B. Follow-Up Interviews
with GT Women
Faculty 2004
The GT ADVANCE Research
Program is tied to GT’s
“integrated institutional
approach” to positive
outcomes-and best
practices-for faculty
C. Survey of Peer Institutions 2003/2004
Reports online at: www.advance.gatech.edu/measures.html
Follow-Up Survey of GT Faculty 2005/2006
II. GT Follow-Up Survey 2005/2006
Sampling Design:
Faculty in Colleges of Computing, Engineering, Sciences, and Ivan Allen
College:
 All tenure and tenure-track women surveyed in 2002 who are still at
GT, plus those who have entered GT since 2002
 Stratified random sample of men surveyed in 2002 who are still at GT,
plus a stratified random sample (25%) of those men who have entered
since 2002
Aims:


Assess areas of change/stability since 2002 in key areas, including
research, work environments, and clarity of evaluation
Assess:



Awareness of NSF Advance
Participation in NSF Advance
Perceptions of “increased administrative attention” to
issues of faculty advancement
Response Rate 71.4%
III. GT Follow-Up: Findings and
Implications
• Findings of Areas of Change/Stability in 2005
Compared to 2002 Survey of GT Faculty
RESEARCH
WORK ENVIRONMENT
EVALUATION
Figure 1. Frequency of Speaking about Research with Faculty in Unit, by Gender and
Year.
2002
Overall
2005
2002
Men
2005
2002
Women
2005
0%
Research
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
less than weekly-02
weekly-02
daily-02
less than weekly-05
weekly-05
daily-05
80%
90%
100%
Figure 2. Ratings of Aspects of Position/Unit, by Gender and Year.
2002
Excellent 4
Overall
Good 3
Men
Women
of college
Recognition
Space
of faculty
Recognition
Equipment
Teaching load
Start-up package
students
Quality of grad
Sense of inclusion
promotion
Chances of
Quality of
undergrad majors
Poor 1
Quality of faculty
Fair 2
Excellent 4
*
Good 3
*
Fair 2
Poor 1
2005
Work Environment
*
*
*= year diff. sig. at<.05
Figure 3. Mean levels of Characterizations of Home Unit, by Gender and Year.
2002
formal
informal
boring
exciting
unhelpful
helpful
uncreative
creative
unfair
fair
noncompetitive
competitive
stressful
unstressful
noninclusive
inclusive
1
2
3
4
5
formal
informal
boring
exciting
unhelpful
helpful
uncreative
creative
*
unfair
noncompetitive
fair
*
stressful
competitive
unstressful
noninclusive
inclusive
2005
overall
Work Environment
men
women
*= year diff. sig. at<.05
Figure 4. Reported Clarity of Criteria for Tenure and Promotion, by Gender and Year,
and by College.
Very 4
*
Moderately 3
Slightly 2
*
= time diff. sig. at 0.05
**
= time diff. sig. at  0.01
Not at all 1
Overall
Men
Women
Very 4
**
**
Moderately 3
Slightly
2
Not at all
1
Computing
Overall-02
Clarity of Evaluation
Engineering
Overall-05
Sciences
Men-02
Men-05
Ivan Allen
Women-02
Women-05
Reported awareness of and
participation in GT’s ADVANCE
Program and perception of increased
administrative attention to faculty
advancement
Figure 5. Level of Awareness of GT ADVANCE Initiatives/Activities, by Gender.
Very 4
men
***
women
***
***
Moderately 3
***
***
***
***
Slightly 2
s
om
M
g
ur
si
n
N
VA
N
AD
T
G
Pr
og
ra
m
zi
ne
M
E
C
E
C
VA
N
AD
ur
e
Te
n
ag
a
itt
ee
Co
m
m
in
st
ru
m
T
AD
EP
an
d
M
e
ty
Fa
cu
l
en
t
ut
ie
s
D
fie
d
od
i
Pr
om
o.
ls/
W
or
ks
ho
ps
on
al
AD
An
nu
Pa
ne
Awareness
Ac
tiv
eSe
rv
ic
VA
N
C
Ad
E
C
va
nc
em
en
t
on
fe
re
nc
e
Not at all 1
***= gender diff. sig. at<.001
Figure 6. Level of Awareness of GT ADVANCE Initiatives/Activities, by Gender and
College.
College of Engineering
Very 4
men
***
***
women
***
Moderately 3
**
***
*
*
Slightly 2
Very 4
Nursing Moms Program
GT ADVANCE Magazine
ADVANCE Committee
Promo. and Tenure
ADEPT instrument
Duties
Active-Service Modified
Faculty Advancement
Panels/Workshops on
Conference
Annual ADVANCE
Not at all 1
*
**
Moderately 3
Slightly 2
*= gender diff. sig. at<.05
**= gender diff. sig. at<.01
***= gender diff. sig. at<.001
Not at all 1
College of Computing
Awareness
Figure 7. Level of Awareness of GT ADVANCE Initiatives/Activities, by Gender and
College.
College of Science
Very 4
men
***
***
Moderately 3
***
women
**
***
**
*
***
Nursing Moms Program
GT ADVANCE Magazine
***
***
Moderately 3
ADVANCE Committee
Promo. and Tenure
ADEPT instrument
Duties
Faculty Advancement
Panels/Workshops on
4
Active-Service Modified
Very
Conference
Not at all 1
Annual ADVANCE
Slightly 2
**
**
***
**
Slightly 2
*= gender diff. sig. at<.05
**= gender diff. sig. at<.01
***= gender diff. sig. at<.001
Not at all 1
Ivan Allen College
Awareness
Figure 8. Reported level of Participation in GT ADVANCE Initiative/Activities, past four
years, by Gender.
Three or more 4
Twice 3
***
***
***
***
Once 2
ss
/E
qu
ity
in
T&
P
ks
ho
ps
en
tW
or
A
ar
en
e
w
A
W
or
k
sh
op
s
on
A
Fa
cu
lty
nn
ua
l
dv
an
c
es
C
on
fe
re
nc
el
L
ge
-le
v
ol
le
C
E
N
C
A
D
VA
em
at
G
un
ch
/D
eo
rg
ia
is
cu
s
Te
c
h
si
on
Never 1
Men
Participation
Women
*** = gender diff. sig. at < 0.001
Figure 9. Reported level of Participation in GT ADVANCE Initiative/Activities, past four
years, by Gender and College.
College of Computing
Three or more 4
Twice
***
***
3
Men
Equity in T&P
Workshops on Awareness/
Workshops
Faculty Advancement
Georgia Tech
1
Women
Annual Conferences at
Never
*
Lunch/Discussion
2
ADVANCE College-level
Once
Three or more 4
3
***
Once
***
***
2
**
Participation
College of Engineering
Workshops on Awareness/
Workshops
Faculty Advancement
Georgia Tech
Annual Conferences at
Lunch/Discussion
ADVANCE College-level
Never 1
Equity in T&P
Twice
*
= gender diff. sig. at <0.05
**
= gender diff. sig. at
<0.01
*** = gender diff. sig. at < 0.001
Figure 10. Reported level of Participation in GT ADVANCE Initiative/Activities, past four
years, by Gender and College.
College of Sciences
Three or more
4
Twice 3
Men
**
**
2
*
Women
Three or more 4
Twice
3
***
***
***
Once
2
Never
1
Ivan Allen College
Participation
Workshops on Awareness/
Workshops
Faculty Advancement
Georgia Tech
Annual Conferences at
Lunch/Discussion
ADVANCE College-level
Never 1
Equity in T&P
Once
**
***
*
= gender diff. sig. at <0.05
**
= gender diff. sig. at < 0.01
*** = gender diff. sig. at < 0.001
Figure 11. Perceived Extent of Increased Attention of GT Administrators to Faculty
Advancement, by Gender.
Greatly increased 4
***
Moderately 3
Slightly 2
Not increased at All 1
overall
Overall
Perception about Attention
men
Men
Women
women
***= gender diff. sig. at<.001
Figure 12. Perceived Extent of Increased Attention of GT Administrators to Faculty
Advancement, by Gender and College.
College of Computing
College of Engineering
4
*
Greatly increased
3
2
*
Moderately
3
Slightly
2
1
Not increased at All
1
4
Greatly increased
4
3
Moderately
3
2
Slightly
2
1
Not increased at All
1
College of Sciences
Overall
Perception about Attention
4
***
Ivan Allen College
Men
Women
*= gender diff. sig. at<.05
**= gender diff. sig. at<.01
***= gender diff. sig. at<.001
IV. Conclusions
1. Just as organization is structured, so it can
continue to be positively structured to support
participation and performance of faculty.
2. Findings from ADVANCE Research Program
suggest that positive transformation can be
supported through diverse means, including:
•
•
•
•
Access to exchange about research
Climates in departments
Clarity of criteria for evaluation
Supportive work-family arrangements