Sex comparisons among science faculty at Hunter College
Hunter College Gender Equity Project& Provost’s Office2007 Science Faculty Survey
Department perceptions, social networks, and procedural knowledge
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
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 fairness1 – how respectfully
people are treated on a day-to-day basis procedural fairness2 – 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
Purpose of Science Faculty Survey
Examine subtle measures of interactional and procedural fairness
college life
department life
professional networks
resource allocation and responsibility
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)
Demographics (Cont.)
Women Men
Assist. Assoc. Full Assist. Assoc. Full
Natural Science
Pop. N
SFS N
11 6
42
2410
107
166
458
% in SFS sample
55 50 42 70 38 18
Social Science
Pop. N
SFS N
105
127
168
63
135
2812
% in SFS sample
50 58 50 50 38 43
BiologyChemistryComputer Sci.GeographyMath & Stat.Physics & Astro
AnthropologyEconomics Political Sci. Psychology Sociology
Results
College Life
Department Life
Professional Networks
Resource Allocation and Responsibility
College Life: Importance of teaching
1
2
3
4
5
Self Colleagues Chair Administration
En
do
rsem
ent
Men (N=34) Women (N=34)
College Life: Importance of research
1
2
3
4
5
Self Colleagues Chair Administration
En
do
rsem
ent
Men (N=36) Women (N=39)
College Life: Importance of committee work
1
2
3
4
5
Self Colleagues Chair Administration
En
do
rse
me
nt
Men (N=31) Women (N=32)
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
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
Example: I receive/d enough feedback on my progress toward tenure/promotion.
College Life:
Satisfaction with tenure and promotion
1
2
3
4
5
Men (N=33) Women (N=35)
Sex
En
do
rse
me
nt
t(1,66) = 2.29, p = 0.03
Example: Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my current job.
College Life:Job Satisfaction
1
2
3
4
5
Men (N=38) Women (N=39)
Sex
En
do
rsem
en
t
t(1,75) = 1.84, p = 0.07
College Life Summary
Compared to men, women are less
satisfied with tenure and promotion processes
satisfied with their jobs
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
Department Life:
Inclusion & Belonging
Example: I feel like I “fit” in my department.
1
2
3
4
5
Men (N=35) Women (N=36)
Sex
En
do
rse
me
nt
t(1,69) = 2.89, p < 0.01
Department Life:Collegiality
Example: Communication is good among the people in my department.
1
2
3
4
5
Men (N=39) Women (N=39)
Sex
En
do
rse
me
nt
t(1,76) = 3.10, p < 0.01
Example: There are people in your department who have used influence to support your advancement.
Department Life:Support
1
2
3
4
5
Men (N=33) Women (N=38)
Sex
En
do
rse
me
nt
t(1,69) = 1.78, p = 0.08
Example: When I make a request it is completed in full.
Department Life:Evaluation of Department Staff
1
2
3
4
5
Men (N=35) Women (N=34)
Sex
En
do
rsem
en
t
t (1,67) = 3.14, p < 0.01
Department Life Summary
Men report more and women report less
sense of inclusion and belonging
collegiality
support from colleagues
satisfaction with department staff
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
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
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
Professional Networks:How often do you talk about teaching with Hunter faculty?
0
20
40
60
80
100
Men (N=40) Women (N=39)
Sex
% A
gre
eAlmost never/ Once or twice a semesterOnce or twice a monthAt least once a week/ Almost every day
χ2 = 11.43, p < 0.01
Professional Networks:How often do you talk about research with Hunter faculty?
0
20
40
60
80
100
Men (N=40) Women (N=40)
Sex
%
Ag
ree
Almost never/ Once or twice a semesterOnce or twice a monthA tleast once a week/ Almost every day
χ2 = 5.21, p = 0.07
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
Professional Networks:How much recognition do you get for teaching?
1
2
3
4
5
From Administration From Chair From Colleagues
Rec
og
nit
ion
Men (N=32) Women (N=32)
Professional Networks:How much recognition do you get for research?
1
2
3
4
5
From Administration From Chair From Colleagues
Rec
og
nit
ion
Men (N=34) Women (N=32)
Professional Networks:How much recognition do you get for committee work?
1
2
3
4
5
From Administration From Chair From Colleagues
Rec
og
nit
ion
Men (N=33) Women (N=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
Resource Allocation and Responsibility
I receive the amount I need to advance my work.
1
2
3
4
5
Office Space Lab Space TAs Course load
En
do
rsem
en
t
Men
Women
Resource Allocation and Responsibility
I learned about rules and procedures from...
0
20
40
60
80
100
Colleagues Chair On own I still don'tunderstand
What rulesand
procedures?
% A
gre
e
Men
Women
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Why it matters
Recognition by colleagues improves individuals' attachment to institution
End