National Academies Press: OpenBook

Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018)

Chapter: Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey

« Previous: Appendix C Qualitative Study of Sexual Harassment in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 273
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 274
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 275
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 276
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 277
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 278
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 279
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 280
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 282
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 283
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 284
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 285
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 286
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 287
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 288
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 289
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24994.
×
Page 290

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Appendix D Consultant Report on the University of Texas System Campus Climate Survey Prepared for National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine The Committee on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia 500 Fifth St. NW Washington DC 20001 Prepared by Dr. Kevin M. Swartout, Georgia State University Chair, Administrator-Researcher Campus Climate Collaborative 273 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

274 APPENDIX D INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT Per the consultant agreement, Dr. Swartout obtained data related to sexual harassment from the University of Texas System (UT), which collected student data using the ARC3 Campus Climate Survey. He then conducted a series of analyzes focused on understanding the effects of sexual harassment experienced by students majoring in areas related to science, engineering, and medicine. Results from an additional ARC3 survey implantation across the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (Penn State)—presented at the October 2017 Working Group meeting—are included in the report at key points for comparison purposes. Dr. Swartout did not have access to the raw Penn State data; therefore, all statistical analyses described in this report were conducted using only the UT climate data. Dr. Swartout was well positioned to carry out these proposed tasks. He currently chairs the ARC3 group, which is a collaborative of sexual violence researchers and student affairs professionals who came together to respond to calls issued by the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual As- sault, particularly the need to identify the scope of sexual misconduct on college campuses. As chair, Dr. Swartout had led efforts to develop, test, and disseminate the no-cost campus climate survey of sexual misconduct used to collect the data that he proposes to analyze. Representatives of approximately 400 institutions of higher education have requested the ARC3 survey since September 2015, and more than 150 U.S. institutions have used the survey to collected campus climate data from their student populations. The UT and Penn State campus climate data are well suited to help address the working group’s research questions. The UT climate survey included 13 state institutions of higher education across Texas. More information on the UT System campus climate survey and results can be found at https://www.utsys- tem.edu/sites/clase. The Penn State climate survey included 23 state institutions of higher education across Pennsylvania. More information on the Penn State System campus climate survey and results is at https://studentaffairs.psu.edu/ assessment/smcs/. STEM Definitions The National Science Foundation’s definition of STEM fields was used for the purposes of this project. This definition includes fields of medicine, engineer- ing, and the natural, computational and social sciences (e.g., psychology and anthropology). Additionally, the Working Group elected to include the field of public health as a STEM science. STEM students were further broken down into students of the sciences (e.g., biology, computer science, psychology), engineer- ing (e.g., electrical, mechanical, petroleum), and medicine (i.e., M.D. students) for more fine-grained analysis. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 275 RESULTS Faculty/Staff Sexual Harassment Overall, 3,831 students (20.0 percent) reported experiencing sexual harass- ment perpetrated by a faculty or staff member; 3,343 (17.4 percent) reported experiencing sexist hostility, 1,411 (7.7 percent) reported crude behavior, 595 (3.1 percent) reported unwanted sexual attention, and 240 (1.3 percent) reported sexual coercion. Table D-1 depicts the overall faculty/staff sexual harassment rates by student gender identity. Of note, incidence of sexual harassment by faculty or staff significantly differed as a function of gender, with high incidence rates among women and those who endorsed a gender other than male or female relative to the overall sample. This pattern held for three of the four subtypes of faculty/staff harassment: sexist hostility (chi-square = 248.29, p<.001), crude be- havior (chi-square = 126.95, p<.001), and unwanted sexual attention (chi-square = 21.41, p<.001), but not sexual coercion. Table D-2 depicts the overall faculty/staff sexual harassment incidence by student status (i.e., undergraduate student, graduate student, or medical student). Incidence of sexual harassment by faculty or staff significantly differed as a func- TABLE D-1  Overall Faculty/Staff Sexual Harassment Incidence by Gender Identity (% of row total) Faculty/Staff Sexual Harassment Student Gender No Yes Female 9,548 (78.0%) 2,697 (22.0%)* Male 5,685 (84.7%)* 1,025 (15.3%) Another Gender   124 (53.7%)   107 (46.3%)* (chi-square = 225.35, p<.001; *standardized residual > 2.0) TABLE D-2  Overall Faculty/Staff Sexual Harassment Incidence by Student Status (% of row total) Faculty/Staff Sexual Harassment Student Status No Yes Undergraduate 10,520 (80.6%) 2,537 (19.4%) Graduate (Non-Med.)   4,347 (80.0%) 1,088 (20.0%) Medical Student    351 (63.2%)    204 (36.8%)* (chi-square = 80.16, p<.001; *standardized residual > 2.0) PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

276 APPENDIX D FIGURE D-1  Faculty/staff sexual harassment incidence for female students by student major (UT Data). tion of student status, with high incidence rates among medical students relative to the overall sample. This pattern held for sexist hostility (chi-square = 98.21, p<.001) and crude behavior (chi-square = 33.32, p<.001), but not unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion. Taken together, these findings indicate that gender identity and student status are both relevant factors in faculty/staff perpetrated sexual harassment incidence. Because female students were at greater risk for experiencing harassment, ad- ditional analyses focused on the female subsample to generate more specific implications for those students at greatest risk. Corresponding figures depicting rates of sexual harassment reported by the male subsample are presented for comparison purposes. Although the subsample that endorsed a gender other than male or female were also at increased risk for experiencing faculty/staff harass- ment, that subsample was too small for more fine-grained analysis. Figure D-1 depicts the percentages of female students of each major who experienced different forms of sexual harassment by faculty or staff in the UT sample. Results of a binary logistic regression suggest that female medical stu- dents were 220 percent more likely than non-STEM majors to experience sexual harassment by faculty or staff (OR = 3.20, p < .001), and female engineering students were 34 percent more likely than non-STEM majors to experience sexual harassment by faculty or staff (OR = 1.34, p = .002). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 277 This trend held for sexist hostility by faculty and staff: Female medical students were 235 percent more likely than non-STEM majors to experience sexist hostility by faculty or staff (OR = 3.35, p < .001). Female engineering students were 36 percent more likely than non-STEM majors to experience sexist hostility by faculty or staff (OR = 1.36, p = .002). This trend partially held for crude behavior: female medical students were 149 percent more likely than non-STEM majors to experience crude harassment by faculty or staff (OR = 2.49, p < .001), but female engineering students were not significantly more likely to experience crude behavior. Finally, there were no statistically significant differences in female students’ likelihood of experiencing unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion as a function of their academic major. Figure D-2 depicts similar rates reported by women in the Penn State sample, and Figures 3 and 4 depict sexual harassment rates reported by men in the respective samples. FIGURE D-2  Faculty/staff sexual harassment incidence for female students by student major (Penn State Data). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

278 APPENDIX D FIGURE D-3  Faculty/staff sexual harassment incidence for male students by student major (UT Data). FIGURE D-4  Faculty/staff sexual harassment incidence for male students by student major (Penn State Data). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 279 Outcomes of Faculty/Staff Harassment Health and Safety. Female medical students who experienced any sexual harass- ment by faculty or staff, compared with those who had not, reported significantly worse physical (t[289]=2.88, p=.004), and mental health outcomes (t[289]=3.22, p=.001), and they reported feeling less safe on campus (t[289]=2.35, p=.020). Female engineering students who experienced any sexual harassment by fac- ulty or staff, compared with those who had not, reported significantly worse phys- ical (t[602]=2.92, p=.004), and mental health outcomes (t[602]=2.83, p=.005), but there was not a significant difference in their feelings of safety on campus. Female science majors who experienced any sexual harassment by faculty or staff, compared with those who had not, reported significantly worse physical (t[5302]=2.92, p<.001) and mental health outcomes (t[5304]=10.77, p<.001), and they reported feeling less safe on campus (t[5299]=3.25, p=.001). Female non-STEM majors who experienced any sexual harassment by fac- ulty or staff, compared with those who had not, reported significantly worse physical (t[5711]=10.14, p<.001) and mental health outcomes (t[5713]=11.96, p<.001), and they reported feeling less safe on campus (t[5716]=4.97, p<.001). A series of 4(major)x2(SH status) analysis of variances supported significant differences in physical health, mental health, and feelings of safety on campus as functions of both academic major status (non-STEM, Science/Technology, Engineering, and Medicine) and faculty/staff sexual harassment experience (Yes vs. No); however, the interactive effect of the two factors was nonsignificant for all outcomes. Figures D-5 through D-7 present means on each outcome for each group. Academic Disengagement. Female engineering majors who experienced any sexual harassment by faculty or staff missed significantly more classes (t[603]=2.99, p=.003) and made more excuses to get out of classes (t[600]=3.78, p<.001) compared with female engineering majors who had not experienced sexual harassment by faculty or staff. These two groups did not significantly differ in how often they reported being late for class or doing poor work. The contrasts are depicted in Figure D-8. Female medical students who experienced any sexual harassment by fac- ulty or staff reported doing poor work significantly more often than female medical students who had not experienced sexual harassment by faculty or staff (t[287]=2.34, p=.02). These two groups did not significantly differ in how often they reported missing class, being late for class, or making excuses to get out of class. The contrasts are depicted in Figure D-9. Female science majors who experienced any sexual harassment by fac- ulty or staff reported missing class (t[5304]=7.26, p<.001), being late for class (t[5296]=9.03, p<.001), making excuses to get out of class (t[5291]=6.20, p<.001), and doing poor work (t[5290]=7.30, p<.001), significantly more often PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

280 APPENDIX D FIGURES D-5 through D-7  Health and safety outcomes by student major and faculty/ staff sexual harassment status. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 281 FIGURE D-8 Academic engagement for female engineering majors as a function of faculty/staff sexual harassment experience. Note: SH = Sexual Harassment. Y-axis scale is 0 (almost never) – 4 (almost always). FIGURE D-9  Academic engagement for female medical students as a function of faculty/ staff sexual harassment experience. Note: SH = Sexual Harassment. Y-axis scale is 0 (almost never) – 4 (almost always). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

282 APPENDIX D than female science majors who had not experienced sexual harassment by fac- ulty or staff. The contrasts are depicted in Figure D-10. Female non-STEM majors who experienced any sexual harassment by faculty or staff reported missing class (t[5715]=8.43, p<.001), being late for class (t[5708]=10.07, p<.001), making excuses to get out of class (t[5701]=8.69, p<.001), and doing poor work (t[5712]=6.29, p<.001), significantly more often than female non-STEM majors who had not experienced sexual harassment by faculty or staff. The contrasts are depicted in Figure D-11. A series of 4(major)x2(SH status) analysis of variances support significant differences in reports of missing class, being late for class, making excuses to get out of class, and doing poor work as functions of both academic major status (non-STEM, Science/Technology, Engineering, and Medicine) and faculty/staff sexual harassment experience (Yes vs. No). In addition, the two factors interacted significantly to affect being late for class (F[3]=3.08, p=.01), but not the other outcomes. The contrasts and graphs presented above suggest the negative effect of faculty/staff sexual harassment on being late to class was larger for science and non-STEM majors than it was for engineering and medical students. FIGURE D-10  Academic engagement for female science majors as a function of faculty/ staff sexual harassment experience. Note: SH = Sexual Harassment. Y-axis scale is 0 (almost never) – 4 (almost always). PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 283 FIGURE D-11 Academic engagement for female non-STEM majors as a function of faculty/staff sexual harassment experience. Note: SH = Sexual Harassment. Y-axis scale is 0 (almost never) – 4 (almost always). Intersectionality Among female STEM students, white (non-Hispanic) students collectively reported significantly higher incidence of sexual harassment by faculty/staff (chi- square[1]=24.68, p<.001) than students of another race or ethnicity. Among these students, however, there was a significant interaction between experiencing sexual harassment by faculty/staff and race/ethnicity on student perceptions of campus safety (F[1]=4.42, p<.001). As depicted in Figure 38, students who experienced sexual harassment by faculty/staff and endorsed a race or ethnicity other than white (non-Hispanic) perceived their campus as less safe than the other female STEM students. There were no other significant interactions between race and sexual harassment experiences on health and safety outcomes. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

284 TABLE D-3  Cell sizes for each racial/ethnic categorization by academic major (only female students) African Pacific White American AIAN Asian Biracial Hispanic Multiracial Islander Total Non-STEM 3163 562 88 983 199 3512 80 36 8623 Science 2463 538 75 1231 148 3035 57 36 7583 Engineering 310 41 7 325 16 223 4 11 937 Medicine 137 21 5 69 8 58 3 3 304 Total 6073 1162 175 2608 371 6828 144 86 17447 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 285 FIGURE D-12  Rates of faculty/staff sexual harassment across all academic majors (only female students). FIGURE D-13  Sexual harassment rates among female STEM Majors by dichotomous race/ethnicity. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

286 APPENDIX D FIGURE D-14  Perceptions of campus safety among female STEM students by dichoto- mous race/ethnicity. Note: SH = Sexual Harassment. Higher scores indicate greater perceptions of safety. KEY TAKEAWAYS • Overall, 20.0 percent of the students surveyed reported experiencing sexual harassment perpetrated by a faculty or staff member. • Female students (22.0 percent) and students who endorsed a gender other than male or female (46.3 percent) had significantly higher incidence rates of sexual harassment by faculty/staff, compared with male students (15.3 percent). • Female medical and engineering students both reported significantly higher incidence of sexual harassment by faculty/staff (medical: 47 per- cent, engineering: 27 percent), compared with students enrolled in another major (i.e., sciences, non-STEM). • Female students who experienced sexual harassment, compared with those who had not, generally reported worse physical and mental health outcomes, feeling less safe on campus, and higher levels across various indicators of academic disengagement. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 287 • Among female STEM students, although white (non-Hispanic) students reported greater incidence of sexual harassment by faculty/staff, students of color and white Hispanic students who experienced sexual harassment by faculty/staff generally perceived their campus as less safe than the other female STEM students. METHODS APPENDIX (UT CLIMATE SURVEY) Human Subjects Protection The UT Austin Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved and oversaw this campus climate study (IRB approval No. 2015-09-0110). Other UT institu- tors also independently reviewed and approved the study procedures. The IRB proposal was submitted by the UT principal investigator and research team and shared with Dr. Swartout and the National Academies staff for review. The IRB proposal included the overall research protocol, amendments to the principal sur- vey instrument, which included variations made on an institution-by-institution basis. All institutions were provided with a copy of the study protocols and IRB approval at the time of the study. Each institution tailored the instrument to their specificities and population (e.g., each institution was able to define their own list of programs of study). No research-related activities involving human subjects took place until the study was fully reviewed and approved by the UT Austin IRB. Students’ privacy and confidentiality were protected at every step of the data collection and analysis process. Each institution’s registrar office provided a list of official student e-mail addresses. The UT principal investigator and research team used the Qualtrics online survey software platform to conduct the survey and store the sampling frame information. The survey data were initially stored in a separate database within Qualtrics while the survey was active. There was no link between the sampling frames and the survey data. The platform generated a unique URL for each eligible participant that was destroyed upon survey comple- tion. The institutional registrar did not provide the UT research team with any additional identifying information, nor was identifying information collected with the sensitive survey data. Although e-mail addresses were collective to facilitate incentives, they were not linked to the sensitive survey data. Informed consent information was presented to students on the first page of the survey. It included a written description of the study made available online to participants, external resources for students, and information on incentives, risks, and benefits of survey participation. After reviewing the informed-consent information, participants were able to click “yes” to participate in the survey. Participation was confidential and voluntary, and participants could choose to skip any question in the survey without penalty, discontinue survey participation, or stop and restart at any time. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

288 APPENDIX D Student Recruitment The UT research team used the e-mail addresses provided by the institutional registrar offices to advertise the study to eligible students across institutions. This e-mail included an individualized hyperlink to the survey website. Additionally, the research team encouraged stakeholder groups at each institution to engage in survey recruitment. Each group was provided with templates for recruitment and promotional e-mails, fliers, and social media posts to help increase awareness of the study. Most institutions sent a recruitment/promotional letter to all students, faculty, and staff to announce the survey and express institutional support. Most institutions promoted the survey via social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter). Social media posts included a general hyperlink to the survey website. Survey Incentives Individual institutions selected and funded incentives for their student par- ticipants. Incentives therefore differed across the UT institutions. Incentives in- cluded randomly selected drawings for parking passes, gift cards, athletic tickets, and cash prices. Participants could enter a given drawing by clicking on a link at the end of the survey, which took them to a separate incentives survey. This process separated participants’ sensitive survey data from their identifiable incen- tive information, which included their names and contact information. Incentive winners were selected by the individual institution stakeholder groups. Student Participants The research team successfully recruited 28,270 (12.4 percent) of the 228,710 students actively enrolled in the UT system. Of this, 17,959 (63.6 percent) identi- fied as women, 9,934 (35.2 percent) as men, 230 as another gender identity (< 1.0 percent), and 120 did not respond to the gender identity item (< 1.0 percent). Furthermore, 6.1 percent of the students self-identified as African American, 17.1 percent as Asian, 2.3 percent as biracial, 39.6 percent as Hispanic, 1.1 percent as multiracial, 39.5 percent as white (non-Hispanic), and 4.9 percent as another unspecified race/ethnicity. Undergraduates made up a majority of the sample at 69.8 percent, followed by master’s students at 17.5 percent, doctoral students at 8.0 percent, medical students at 2.0 percent, and students in a number of post- baccalaureate or professional programs accounting for a total of 0.7 percent. For the present analyses, students were categorized into non-STEM (12,788, 45.2 percent), science and technology majors (11,069, 39.2 percent), engineering majors (3,157, 11.2 percent), and medical students (573, 2.0 percent). Of just the subsample of female students, 8,636 (49.4 percent) were non-STEM, 7,603 (43.5 percent) were science and technology majors, 939 were engineering majors (5.4 percent), and 304 (1.7 percent) were medical students. Students who had not yet PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

APPENDIX D 289 declared a major at the time of the study (2.4 percent) were excluded from the present analyses. Measures Faculty/Staff-Perpetrated Sexual Harassment. The Sexual Harassment by Faculty/Staff module of the ARC3 Campus Climate Survey was adapted from the Department of Defense Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-DOD), origi- nally modified from the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (Fitzgerald et al. 1988, 1995). This 16-item questionnaire had strong high internal consistency as part of this implementation of ARC3 Campus Climate Survey (α=.90). The 16 items and 4 subscales are as follows: 1. Sexist Hostility/Sexist Gender Harassment (α=.83)  Unwanted and unwelcomed words, actions, symbols, gestures, and be- haviors that are based on sex or gender and characteristically repetitive. 1.1. Treated you “differently” because of your sex. 1.2. Displayed, used, or distributed sexist or suggestive materials. 1.3. Made offensive sexist remarks. 1.4. Put you down or was condescending to you because of your sex. 2. Sexual Hostility/Crude Gender Harassment (α=.83)  Unwanted and unwelcomed words, gestures, and body language of a sexual nature and characteristically repetitive. 2.5. Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you 2.6.  Made unwelcomed attempts to draw you into a discussion of sexual matters. 2.7. Made offensive remarks about your appearance, body, or sexual activities. 2.8. Made gestures or used body language of a sexual nature which embarrassed or offended you. 3. Unwanted Sexual Attention (α=.83)  Persistent unwanted, unwelcomed, or violating behaviors and gestures of a sexual nature that caused discomfort. 3.9.  Made unwanted attempts to establish a romantic sexual relation- ship with you despite your efforts to discourage it. 3.10.  ontinued to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though C you said “No.” 3.11. Touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable. 3.12. Made unwanted attempts to stroke, fondle, or kiss you. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

290 APPENDIX D 4. Sexual Coercion (α=.95)  Sexually compelled involuntary actions by an individual without regard for their desire or volition by use of force, threat, or authority. 4.13.  ade you feel like you were being bribed with a reward to engage M in sexual behavior. 4.14.  ade you feel threatened with some sort of retaliation for not be- M ing sexually cooperative. 4.15.  reated you badly for refusing to have sex. T 4.16.  mplied better treatment if you were sexually cooperative I Survey Versions Students who attended one of the academic institutions were randomly as- signed to one of three survey paths—A, B, and C—to manage the overall level of survey burden on the student population. Path A mainly addressed campus cli- mate and sexual misconduct victimization. Path B included fewer campus-climate questions, but included an economic impact module. Path C focused on a mix of victimization and perpetration questions. Of note for the present analyses, the sexual harassment modules appeared in versions A and B, but not C. All health institution students were given a version of the survey that included both sexual harassment modules. Data Cleaning The UT research team assessed the climate survey data for quality and con- sistency using a multiple-step approach. First, individual survey responses were inspected and average response times were computed to determine a reasonable minimum threshold for the acceptable time it should take a student to earnestly complete the survey. This in-depth process involved examining the questions missed by students, the relevance of open-ended responses to the topic being assessed, and whether participants had at least attempted all the victimization sections, when applicable. Participants’ right to skip any question per the IRB- approved protocol was considered. Using this process, the UT research team established that 10 minutes was the minimum threshold for an acceptable survey completion. This criterion was therefore set to determine if a response would be retained in the final sample and used for subsequent analyses. In addition, the UT research team evaluated open-ended responses, and excluded responses where there was obvious evidence for survey abuse or participant response error. PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $59.00 Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Over the last few decades, research, activity, and funding has been devoted to improving the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine. In recent years the diversity of those participating in these fields, particularly the participation of women, has improved and there are significantly more women entering careers and studying science, engineering, and medicine than ever before. However, as women increasingly enter these fields they face biases and barriers and it is not surprising that sexual harassment is one of these barriers.

Over thirty years the incidence of sexual harassment in different industries has held steady, yet now more women are in the workforce and in academia, and in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine (as students and faculty) and so more women are experiencing sexual harassment as they work and learn. Over the last several years, revelations of the sexual harassment experienced by women in the workplace and in academic settings have raised urgent questions about the specific impact of this discriminatory behavior on women and the extent to which it is limiting their careers.

Sexual Harassment of Women explores the influence of sexual harassment in academia on the career advancement of women in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce. This report reviews the research on the extent to which women in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine are victimized by sexual harassment and examines the existing information on the extent to which sexual harassment in academia negatively impacts the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women pursuing scientific, engineering, technical, and medical careers. It also identifies and analyzes the policies, strategies and practices that have been the most successful in preventing and addressing sexual harassment in these settings.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!