Outcomes of 19 Institutional Transformation Efforts to ADVANCE Gender Equity

1
Outcomes of 19 Institutional Transformation
Efforts to ADVANCE Gender Equity
ICWES, Adelaide, Australia July 20, 2011

• Diana Bilimoria Xiangfen Liang
• Case Western Reserve University
• Cleveland, OH, USA
• diana.bilimoria_at_case.edu

2
Why Focus on Gender Equity in Academic Science
and Engineering?

• Womens under-representation and lack of
  inclusion at all faculty ranks and in leadership
  has detrimental implications for the future of
  the U.S. scientific workforce and is a lost
  opportunity for U.S. academic SE to compete
  globally
• Systematic, historical, and widespread inequities
  in womens representation and inclusion persist
  at every stage of the SE academic pipeline,
  counter to sciences ethos of openness to talent

3
Source NCSES Characteristics of Doctoral
Scientists and Engineers in the United States
2006 http//www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf09317/
4
The NSF ADVANCE Initiative

• Program Goal Increase the participation and
  advancement of women at all levels in academic
  science and engineering careers.
• Three program components
• Institutional Transformation
• IT-Catalyst
• Partnerships for Adaptation, Implementation, and
  Dissemination (PAID)

5
Institutional Transformation (IT)

• The IT component has been in all program
  solicitations since 2001
• 5-year projects
• 2 M to 5 M total
• Comprehensive, institution-wide, projects to
  transform the culture of the university or
  college
• Examples of project activities
• Reviewing, updating, and clarifying hiring,
  promotion and tenure policies
• Developing dual career hiring policies
• Establishing mentoring programs
• Providing training for departmental leaders
• Climate surveys and data analysis

6
ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Grantees
2001-2008
7
ADVANCE Portfolio Institutional Type 2001-2009

• One hundred and eleven (111) different
  Institutions of higher education
• 84 public and 27 private
• Nine professional and non-profit STEM-related
  organizations
• Twelve Minority-Serving Institutions (10.8 of
  ADVANCE institutions)
• 7 Hispanic-Serving Institutions,
• 6 Historically Black Colleges and Universities
  (including one womens college),
• 1 Alaskan Native-Serving Institution, and
• 1 institution primarily serving persons with
  disabilities
• Three womens colleges (including 1 HBCU)

8
Our Study Purpose

• To describe the initiatives and assess the
  outcomes of the institutional transformation
  experience of 19 US universities, funded as the
  first two cohorts of NSFs ADVANCE IT program,
  that have aimed to increase the participation of
  female faculty in all SE ranks and in leadership
• To develop a generalized framework for how higher
  education institutions can enable gender equity
  through transforming their structures and cultures

9
Methods

• We analyzed the annual reports, final reports,
  websites, research publications, and evaluation
  reports of 19 universities (Cohorts 1 2) funded
  by NSF ADVANCE IT awards
• We also drew on interviews with 54 ADVANCE IT
  project PIs, team leaders, and senior faculty at
  these universities about the nature and outcomes
  of their efforts (results presented by D.
  Bilimoria V. Valian at 2006 NSF ADVANCE PI
  Meeting, Washington, D.C.)
• Early findings reported (in Bilimoria, D., Joy,
  S. Liang, X.F. (2008). Breaking Barriers and
  Creating Inclusiveness Lessons of Organizational
  Transformation to Advance Women Faculty in
  Academic Science and Engineering, Human Resources
  Management, 47, 3 423-441.
• Book manuscript submitted for publication by
  Taylor Francis (Routledge) in 2011 (Gender
  Equity in Science and Engineering Advancing
  Change in Higher Education)

10
Sample The first two cohorts of ADVANCE IT
awardees (19 universities)

• Cohort 1 (2001-2006)
• Georgia Institute of Technology
• Hunter College, the City University of New York
• New Mexico State University
• University of Colorado, Boulder
• University of California, Irvine
• University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• University of Puerto Rico, Humacao
• University of Washington
• University of Wisconsin, Madison

• Cohort 2 (2003-2008)
• Case Western Reserve University
• Columbia University
• Kansas State University
• University of Alabama, Birmingham
• University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• University of Montana
• University of Rhode Island
• University of Texas, El Paso
• Utah State University
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute

11
Sample Characteristics

• Carnegie Classification
• 17 Research Universities 11 Very High, 6 High
• 1 Masters, 1 Baccalaureate
• Type
• 17 Public, 2 Private
• STEM Faculty Size Ranges over ADVANCE duration
• Over 1200 1 (Wisconsin)
• 498-890 3 (Michigan, GT, K-State)
• 293-497 7 (VT, Washington, Colorado, UCI, Utah
  State, Columbia, CWRU)
• 106-251 6 (URI, NMSU, UTEP, UMBC, Montana, UAB)
• lt 100 2 (UPRH, Hunter)

12
Findings (1) - Factors Facilitating
Transformation

• Internal Factors
• Senior administrative support and involvement
• A champion of institutional transformation
• Collaborative, cross-disciplinary leadership
• Widespread and synergistic partnerships across
  campus
• Visibility of actions and outcomes (small wins
  strategies)
• External
• Legitimacy, funding, and coordination from NSF
• A network of peer institutions for best practice
  sharing and support

13
Findings (2) - Transformational Initiatives
Undertaken

• Pipeline Initiatives, aimed at
• increasing the inflow of women into the pipeline
• better equipping women to successfully progress
  in the pipeline
• improving the institutional structures and
  processes related to academic career transition
  points (recruitment, tenure, promotion,
  leadership)
• Climate Initiatives, aimed at
• engaging in efforts to make departments
  (micro-climates) more collegial, egalitarian,
  equitable and transparent
• increasing organizational awareness of diversity,
  equity and inclusion issues

14
(No Transcript)
15
Findings (3) Institutionalizing the
Transformation

• New Positions and Structures e.g., new positions
  such as ombudspersons, equity advisors, endowed
  chairs, institutional researchers, and
  provosts/deans for faculty development and
  diversity family-friendly structures, such as
  child care facilities and lactation centers for
  nursing mothers
• New and Modified Policies e.g., automatic tenure
  clock extension, dual-career hiring, job sharing,
  work release policies (such as maternity/paternity
  leave in case of child birth or adoption family
  medical leave in case of sickness of any member
  of the family, including parents) and
  family-friendly benefits policies (e.g., domestic
  partner health benefits)
• New Programs e.g., new funding for successful
  programs, continuation of leadership development
  and mentoring programs
• New and Improved Practices e.g., systematic
  documentation of best practices in the form of
  tool kits, guidelines, best practice guides,
  evaluation forms, training manuals,
  presentations, and pamphlets

16
Findings (4) Research and Evaluation in Support
of Transformation

• Systematic efforts to
• Track Key Indicators of Representation, Equity,
  and Inclusion e.g., NSF ADVANCE indicators,
  additional monitoring tools as cohort analyses
  and flux charts.
• Conduct Faculty Climate Studies e.g., climate
  surveys, interview and focus group studies,
  resource equity studies
• Conduct Benchmarking Studies of leading
  departments and universities
• Evaluate Programmatic Interventions
• Strengthen the Institutional Research
  Infrastructure (Improve Internal Collection,
  Analysis, and Use of Data) e.g., templates for
  faculty databases, initial resources for database
  creation and maintenance, just-in-time training
  tools for more equitable personnel decision
  making, and presentations of analyses and
  recommendations to senior administrators

17
Findings (5) The Outcomes of Institutional
Transformation

• Changes over the ADVANCE award period in numbers
  and percentages of women at all ranks and in
  leadership
• Number of institutions showing increase, no
  change, or decrease in women
• Changes over the ADVANCE award period in numbers
  and percentages of women in specific disciplines

18
Changes in Numbers of STEM Women Men Faculty
over ADVANCE Awards
Variables ( of universities with valid indicators) Baseline Year Baseline Year Final Year Final Year Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Variables ( of universities with valid indicators) Mean SD Mean SD Z p-value
Women Faculty
women assistant professors (n 18) 19 18 27 21 3.32 0.001
women associate professors (n 18) 18 11 20 15 1.16 0.245
women professors (n 18) 17 19 25 22 3.66 0.000
Total number of women faculty (n 19) 53 44 71 55 3.73 0.000
Men Faculty
men assistant professors (n 18) 57 44 61 50 1.45 0.148
men associate professors (n 18) 73 49 73 46 0.17 0.868
men professors (n 18) 183 163 187 160 1.21 0.227
Total number of men faculty ( n 19) 311 240 320 243 1.58 0.115
Note. p lt 0.01, p lt 0.001
19
Percentage of Women Faculty in STEM over ADVANCE
Awards
20
Changes in Numbers of Faculty in Disciplines over
ADVANCE Awards
Variables ( of universities with valid data) Baseline Year Baseline Year Final Year Final Year Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
Variables ( of universities with valid data) Mean SD Mean SD Z p-value
Engineering (n 16)
female faculty in engineering 14.4 11.3 19.9 14.6 3.42 .001
male faculty in engineering 128.3 88.2 134.6 94.1 1.73 .083
Natural Sciences (n 19)
female faculty in natural sciences 27.3 10.0 36.5 14.5 3.77 .000
male faculty in natural sciences 151.4 73.6 154.5 76.8 0.70 .485
Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) (n 13)
female faculty in SBS 39.8 53.6 48.8 59.9 3.06 .002
male faculty in SBS 80.3 102.8 78.7 95.6 -0.36 .721
Note. p lt 0.01, p lt 0.001
Bilimoria Liang, ICWES, Adelaide, Australia,
7-20-2011
21
Changes in Numbers of Women in Faculty and
Administrative Leadership Positions over the
ADVANCE Award Period
Variables N Baseline Year Baseline Year Final Year Final Year Za
Variables N Mean SD Mean SD Za
Number of women with endowed chairs/named professorships 10 8.00 12.03 12.3 18.35 1.895
Number of women department heads 14 4.86 5.38 6.00 7.43 .763
Number of women deans 14 4.07 3.77 5.07 4.83 1.707
Number of women central administrators 8 3.13 2.85 4.50 3.93 2.232
Total number of women in administrative leadership positions 14 10.71 8.42 13.64 11.86 2.140
aWilcoxon Signed Ranks Test p lt .05, p lt .10
Bilimoria Liang, ICWES, Adelaide, Australia,
7-20-2011
22
Study Conclusions - At the 19 Universities
studied, ADVANCE IT has

• Created new permanent positions, offices and
  structures supporting diversity, equity, and
  inclusion
• Improved faculty practices of recruitment,
  advancement and retention
• Improved university policies to support work-life
  integration
• Increased the monitoring of gender equity
  indicators and improved the capacity for
  institutional research
• Improved the gender awareness and leadership of
  SE department chairs
• Increased the workforce participation of women
  faculty in academic SE
• Increased the representation of women faculty in
  STEM at assistant and full professor ranks
• Increased the representation of women faculty in
  the disciplines of engineering, natural sciences,
  and social behavioral sciences
• Increased women holding endowed professorships in
  SE
• Increased women in administrative leadership
  positions

23
A Model of Institutional Transformation for
Gender Equity and Inclusion
24
Conclusions - Enabling Gender Diversity, Equity
and Inclusion Requires Comprehensive
Institutional Transformation

• Simplistic or piecemeal solutions cannot
  eradicate systematic, historical, and widespread
  gender inequities in the workforce participation
  of women in academic SE.
• Institutions that implement wider and deeper
  change, systematically transforming their
  structures, processes, work practices and mental
  models, can engender improved diversity, equity
  and inclusion.
• In the process of such transformation, the
  academic workplace improves for all.