Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 181
Appendix 1-4 The Surveys The committee designed the surveys to collect information that has gone largely uncollected—or has been done for a few universities, but not across many institutions. As noted earlier in the chapter, the committee designed the depart- mental survey to focus on processes, particularly tenure, promotion, and hiring, as well as on departmental characteristics. The faculty survey, on the other hand, was designed to assess the resources individual faculty received and to collect suffi- cient information on faculty to allow for comparisons across fields or by ranks. The American Institute of Physics (AIP) was contracted to craft the final survey instruments and implement the surveys. The surveys were developed during September 2004. The departmental questionnaire was primarily a mailed instrument. The faculty questionnaire was primarily a Web-based instrument. For both surveys, multiple follow-ups occurred by mail for departments and by e-mail for faculty. The theoretical population for the departmental chair survey consisted of 534 departments. This represents 89 departments from the 89 Research I institutions multiplied by the six disciplines: biological sciences, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mathematics, and physics. In actuality, a few institutions did not offer all six programs. One institution, Rockefeller University, had an organizational structure that seemed very different from the traditional notion of a “department.” This school was not included in the survey. As a first step, the committee consulted the institutions’ Web sites and identified the names of the six programs. The names of each program and a link to the program’s Web site are listed at the conclusion of this summary.1 In the case of biology, 87 units were identified. Biology was the most compli- cated, since it is an evolving discipline. Biology “departments,” as thought of in the traditional sense and possessing initial decision-making authority for hiring, tenure and promotions, are called by a variety of names. They are often at least minimally interdisciplinary among the biological sciences, so some units included biochemistry or biophysics; in other cases, the units were subsets of the biological sciences. Departments of molecular and cellular biology are an example of this latter case. In one instance, all the departments had been merged into a single school and so this was included for that institution. In chemistry, 87 departments were identified. The majority were departments of chemistry, while a few were chemistry and biochemistry. In civil engineering, 69 departments were identified. Often civil engineering was bundled with envi- ronmental engineering, and less often with construction engineering, architectural 1 Note that URLs may have changed between the preparation and release of this report. 

OCR for page 181
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FACULTy CAREERS engineering, or mechanical engineering. In electrical engineering, 77 departments were identified. Electrical engineering departments often included computer engi- neering. In mathematics, 86 departments were identified. One of the remaining three institutions only offered mathematics as part of an undergraduate college, and so it was excluded. In a few instances, mathematics departments also included statistics. In one case, a joint mathematics and computer science department was included. Finally, in physics, 86 departments were identified. One of the remain- ing three institutions only offered physics as part of an undergraduate college, and so it was excluded. About half of the departments included astronomy in the department. The result of this was 492 departments. Initially, the committee’s goal was to examine a sample of departments. After further reflection, however, the commit- tee decided a census would be more fruitful. Partly, this reflected a concern that there would be very few responses for women. For example, the questionnaire asked how many faculty were hired in the past 2 years. While many departments were hiring, few hires were women. To increase this latter number, all depart- ments received the sample. Second, the advantage of the census lies in being able to make comparisons between disciplines, e.g., chemistry versus biology, for all Research I institutions. In all 417 departments responded to the questionnaire. This gives an overall response rate of 85 percent, which is a respectable response. By discipline, elec- trical engineering had the lowest response rate, while physics had the highest. One might speculate that the fact that AIP sent the survey, and was familiar with physics departments from other survey projects, might have contributed to the higher return for physics departments. Discipline Responded Sample Percent Biological sciences 76 87 87 Chemistry 76 87 87 Civil engineering 55 69 80 Electrical engineering 59 77 77 Mathematics 74 86 86 Physics 77 86 90 To generate the faculty sample, the committee collected faculty rosters, for assistant, associate, and full professors, at each of the 492 departments. This was done by consulting each department’s Web site for a faculty list. Second, the com- mittee identified the assistant, associate, and full professors in the department. This step was more complex. The committee started with the faculty roster on the individual institution’s departmental Web sites. If it identified these three types of faculty, then those faculty members’ names were entered into a spreadsheet. If the Web site did not identify faculty members’ ranks, then the committee turned to university catalogues. In the event that this failed (because catalogues were not available on line), the committee examined individual faculty members’ Web sites.

OCR for page 181
 APPENDIXES The following faculty were not included: lecturers, instructors, emeriti professors, research professors, adjunct faculty, visiting faculty, and courtesy appointments. In addition, jointly appointed faculty, where the department in question was the secondary appointment, were not included. Thus, an associate professor of chem- istry with a joint appointment in biology, would be counted in chemistry, but not in biology. This process resulted in a final tally of approximately 16,400 faculty. There are obvious, potential limitations to this approach. Specifically, depart- mental roster Web sites and college catalogues may be out of date. Recently hired faculty may not have been added to Web sites, while faculty who have left posi- tions might not have been removed. Faculty may have received promotions that have yet to be reflected on departmental Web sites. As a result, it is likely that a few professorial faculty will be missed or misplaced. Third, the committee identified the gender of each faculty member. This was done primarily by relying on faculty names and photographs on departmental roster Web sites. Where there was some question as to the faculty member’s gender, internet research was attempted, and failing that, the department was called. The results of these efforts are captured in the following table. Population of Faculty in Six Disciplines at Research I Institutions Associate Assistant Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total Biology Male 1222 481 427 2130 Female 262 176 199 637 Total  Chemistry Male 1513 331 408 2252 Female 150 72 101 323 Total  Civil Male 787 371 302 1460 engineering Female 57 50 78 185 Total  Electrical Male 1579 575 531 2685 engineering Female 79 76 70 225 Total 0 Mathematics Male 2153 565 445 3163 Female 151 76 102 329 Total  Physics Male 1994 413 407 2814 Female 119 49 67 235 Total 0 Total 00   

OCR for page 181
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FACULTy CAREERS The committee then took a systematic sample of 50 faculty per gender, rank, and field. Fowler (1993) describes the general procedure: “When drawing a sys- tematic sample from a list, the researcher first determines the number of entries on the list and the number of elements from the list that are to be selected. Dividing the latter by the former will produce a fraction. Thus, if there are 8,500 people on a list and a sample of 100 is required, 1/85 of the list (i.e., 1 out of every 85 per- sons) is to be included in the sample. In order to select a systematic sample, a start point is designated by choosing a random number from 1 to 85. The randomized start ensures that it is a chance selection process. Given that start, the researcher proceeds to take every 85th person on the list.” In some cases, because there are so few women in a particular field at a particular rank, all were selected.2 Pre-notice letters were sent to deans/provosts and to department chairs to alert them to the forthcoming questionnaires and also to ask for their assistance and encouragement in filling out the form. Anecdotally, feedback from the administra- tion was positive and encouraging. The departmental census was offered as both a mail-based and Web-based questionnaire. The departmental questionnaire was mailed in November, 2004. A series of follow-ups was undertaken. The faculty questionnaire was designed as a web-based survey, although some respondents requested a hard copy from the contractor. Faculty received an e-mail request to fill out the survey along with a link to the survey, hosted on the contractor’s server.3 Faculty received multiple e-mail follow-ups. Some faculty had to be removed or re-classified for various reasons. These included accidental duplication of a faculty member in the sample, faculty member was deceased, information regarding faculty member (i.e., rank) was incorrect, and faculty member was no longer at the institution (and had not moved to another Research I institution). The most frequent problem was that the data on the departmental Web sites was incorrect; usually out of date. The final sample involved 1,834 individuals. 2 The sample was sent to the contractor. Once it was confirmed to have reached the contractor, the original file was deleted. Neither the committee nor the National Academies would know the names of potential respondents to the faculty survey. 3 Fortunately, almost all e-mails were correct. “Bounce backs,” or non-working e-mails, were cor- rected. It is possible, though, that the wrong e-mail was collected and used, but that the contractor was not aware that this was an incorrect e-mail, and the respondent was never contacted.

OCR for page 181
 APPENDIXES Final Sample, Including Respondents, Non-respondents, Refusals, Removals Associate Assistant Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total Biology Male 59 53 42 154 Female 58 55 44 157 Total  Chemistry Male 64 49 43 156 Female 48 50 44 142 Total  Civil Male 61 55 36 152 engineering Female 44 56 56 156 Total 0 Electrical Male 51 54 51 156 engineering Female 53 50 45 148 Total 0 Mathematics Male 69 43 43 155 Female 53 46 44 143 Total  Physics Male 61 42 50 153 Female 58 48 56 162 Total  Total  0   Of these 1,834 individuals, 91 had to be removed from the sample, because they should not have been included in the population (e.g., were deceased, no lon- ger at a Research I institution, or not one of the three professorial ranks). Overall, 41 men and 50 women or 24 professors, 29 associate professors, and 38 assistant professors were removed.

OCR for page 181
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FACULTy CAREERS Individuals Removed from Sample Associate Assistant Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total Biology Male 2 5 1 8 Female 1 3 8 12 Total 0 Chemistry Male 1 2 1 4 Female 1 1 4 6 Total 0 Civil Male 1 3 2 6 engineering Female 1 1 0 2 Total  Electrical Male 0 0 0 0 engineering Female 2 3 2 7 Total  Mathematics Male 5 4 8 17 Female 4 2 7 13 Total 0 Physics Male 0 2 4 6 Female 6 3 1 10 Total  Total     Approximately, 1,743 individuals made up the corrected sample. Of these 1,347 responded to the questionnaire. Additionally, 1,278 filled out the survey, while 69 individuals responded by refusing to complete the survey.

OCR for page 181
 APPENDIXES Respondents (Including Those Who Responded by Refusing) Associate Assistant Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total Biology Male 46 33 34 113 Female 49 44 31 124 Total  Chemistry Male 51 34 32 117 Female 39 41 32 112 Total  Civil Male 40 38 26 104 engineering Female 31 48 48 127 Total  Electrical Male 35 31 42 108 engineering Female 40 39 31 110 Total  Mathematics Male 44 25 25 94 Female 35 36 27 98 Total  Physics Male 50 34 30 114 Female 41 34 51 126 Total 0 Total 501 437 409 

OCR for page 181
 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN FACULTy CAREERS Non-respondents Associate Assistant Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total Biology Male 11 15 7 33 Female 8 8 5 21 Total  Chemistry Male 12 13 10 35 Female 8 8 8 24 Total  Civil Male 20 14 8 42 engineering Female 12 7 8 27 Total  Electrical Male 16 23 9 48 engineering Female 11 8 12 31 Total  Mathematics Male 20 14 10 44 Female 14 8 10 32 Total  Physics Male 11 6 16 33 Female 11 11 4 26 Total  Total 154 135 107  To conclude: • 1,834 individuals comprised the sample. • 1,743 individuals comprised the corrected sample (excludes removals). • 1,347 individuals responded (includes refusals). • 1,278 individuals provided some data. • 396 individuals did not respond. The response rate for the survey (number of completed questionnaires divided by number of valid sample elements) is 1,278/1,743 or 73 percent. Immediately following this text are the list of 492 departments surveyed, the departmental questionnaire, and the faculty questionnaire.