UC LEAF External Evaluation Year 1 - University of Cincinnati€¦ · Cincinnati. University...

UC LEAF

External Evaluation Year 1

Section 14.5

Miami University 408 McGuffey Hall Oxford, OH 45056

Phone: 513-529-1686 Fax: 513-529-2110 Website: http://ohioeval.muohio.edu

Evaluation of Leadership, Empowerment, and

Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati

Year 1 Report 2012-2013

Evaluation UC LEAF i

Please cite as follows: Woodruff, S. B., Morio, K. L., & Li, Y. (2013). Evaluation of Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati, 2012-2013. Oxford, OH: Miami University, Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education. Distributed by Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education Sarah B. Woodruff, Director 408 McGuffey Hall Miami University Oxford, Ohio 45056

Evaluation UC LEAF ii

Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati

Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education

Miami University Oxford, Ohio

Sarah B. Woodruff Principal Investigator Yue Li Senior Statistician and Project Manager Kristen Morio Research Associate

Evaluation UC LEAF iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 12

Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 12

Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Participants ................................................................................................................................. 15

Instruments ................................................................................................................................ 15

University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey (Fall 2013) ......................................... 15

The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol ................................................................... 15

Data Collection ............................................................................................................................ 15

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 16

Indicator Data ......................................................................................................................... 16

Interview Data ........................................................................................................................ 17

Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Evaluation of Processes and Project Implementation ...................................................................... 18

University of Cincinnati LEAF Project Launch Event .................................................................... 18

Indicator Data ............................................................................................................................. 18

Baseline Indicator Data ............................................................................................................ 18

Match IHE Comparison Data ..................................................................................................... 19

Interview Data ............................................................................................................................ 21

Faculty Retention Study ............................................................................................................... 24

Continuing Evaluation Activities ........................................................................................................ 26

Summary and Observations .............................................................................................................. 27

Notable Observations ............................................................................................................... 27

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A. University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey ................................................ 29

Appendix B. ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol ............................................................... 49

Appendix C. University of Cincinnati Faculty Retention Study Report .................................................... 50

Evaluation UC LEAF iv

List of Tables

Table 1. UC LEAF Evaluation Plan External Evaluation Activities and Timeline ............................... 13 Table 2. UC LEAF Institutional Site Characteristics ..................................................................... 20

Table 3. UC LEAF Department Crosswalk, University of Cincinnati, SUNY Buffalo, and University of Kentucky ............................................................................................................. 20

Evaluation UC LEAF 12

Introduction

Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education (E & A Center) is the external evaluator for the University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (UC LEAF) project. The UC LEAF project is funded through an Institutional Transformation (IT) grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Dr. Sarah B. Woodruff, Miami University, is the Principal Investigator for the evaluation and Kristen Morio, Research Associate, is the Project Director. Yue Li, is the Senior Statistician and Project Manager for the evaluation. This report is divided into four sections. Section one provides background information about the UC LEAF project and its goals. Section two provides information and findings from Year 1 evaluation and project activities. Section three provides future evaluation plans and ongoing evaluation activities. Section four summarizes observations of the Year 1 evaluation.

Project Description

The University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (UC LEAF) project is an institutional transformation project focusing on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of female Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) faculty at the University of Cincinnati, in Cincinnati, Ohio. The project is funded by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program. Not unlike other large institutions of higher education, University of Cincinnati has few female faculty in STEM departments, particularly women from underrepresented minority groups. Women also occupy few leadership positions. Due to the large number of STEM faculty that are nearing the age of retirement, new hires to the STEM departments in the next few years will have a great impact on the diversity of STEM faculty at UC. Using (a) bottom-up initiatives targeted to women faculty; (b) top-down leadership reform initiatives; and (c) advocacy and accountability initiatives that coordinate the top-down and bottom-up change, the project proposes to improve the climate for women faculty at the University of Cincinnati. University President, Santa Ono, along with a carefully selected team that includes male and female, White and non-White, university representatives, professors, Deans, and diversity leaders, will use the UC LEAF project as a vehicle to change the climate at the University of Cincinnati. The project’s three goals are:

• Goal 1: Improve pathways for women faculty, including women faculty of color, in STEM by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement;

• Goal 2: Transform the climate for STEM faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress, equity, and an inclusive culture; and

• Goal 3: Top-down and bottom-up approaches will be mutually reinforcing and foster shared responsibility.


Evaluation

The external evaluation focuses on assessing the project’s progress toward its goals and monitoring its implementation at the department, college, and institution levels. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected to provide summative analyses for the Project Team. E & A Center staff ensure: (a) that data collection instruments and protocols are valid and reliable; (b) that data analyses are appropriate and accurate; and (c) that findings are based on rigorous internal evaluation activities. During Year 1 of the evaluation, E & A Center staff worked with the UC LEAF Project Team in the development and refinement of the project evaluation plan including external evaluation activities (Table 1). The Project Team provided E & A Center staff with baseline data to incorporate into the evaluation. Research was conducted by the Evaluation Team to identify universities that could be used as match institutions of higher education (IHE). The E & A Center staff worked with the UC LEAF Project Team in the development and refinement of the University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey. The E & A Center staff worked with the UC LEAF Project Team to conduct a study of faculty retention for the past 23 years. The E & A Center staff also attended the UC LEAF project launch event on April 8, 2013. The E & A Center staff and the Project Team communicated via email and several conference calls to discuss the project’s evaluation and progress. During Year 1, the E & A Center Evaluation Team also attended several face-to-face meetings with the Project Research Team. Table 1. UC LEAF Evaluation Plan External Evaluation Activities and Timeline

Project Goal Summative Evaluation Question

Project Activities Evidence Needed Evaluation

Components/Activities Schedule

Improve pathways for women faculty, including women faculty of color, in STEM by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement.

Has the UC LEAF initiative increased the number of women in STEM faculty positions and improved their outcomes?

Bottom Up: • PD Workshops • LEAF Grants

Measurable change in attitudes, knowledge, and awareness among key decision makers (committee members and dept. heads).

Increase in the percentage of: (a) women candidates for STEM positions; (b) women hired for STEM positions, (c) tenure-track women who are promoted and tenured, and (d) women tenured associate professors who are promoted to full professor.

Women STEM faculty will demonstrate: (a) experience writing and reviewing grants; (b) acquisition of seed funding; (c) participation in advanced training; and (d) development of academic and professional leadership skills.

Conduct and analyze interviews of committee members and chairs, and department heads.

Years 2 - 5

Conduct and analyze salary study data.

Years 1, 3, & 5

Conduct and analyze space study data.

As Needed

Top Down: • Dean, Heads,

Committee workshops

• Best practices Seminar Series

Collect and analyze NSF-required indicator data including: (a) new hires; (b) promotion and tenure outcomes; (c) attrition; and (d) leadership composition.

Years 1 - 5

Conduct and analyze faculty retention study data.

Years 1 & 5

Conduct and analyze interviews/focus groups of STEM Faculty.

Years 2 - 5


Transform the climate for STEM faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress, equity, and an inclusive culture.

What is the nature and extent of the impact of UC LEAF project activities on the climate for STEM faculty?

Bottom Up: • Learning

Communities • Visiting Scholars

Program

Women STEM faculty will report: (a) improved intellectual and social support; (b) greater visibility and recognition of accomplishment; and (c) more networking and collaboration opportunities. Women STEM faculty will increase participation in: (a) mentoring programs; and (b) leadership roles at the University. Increase in the percentage of women STEM scientists who report: (a) feeling engaged and empowered; (b) having effective mentoring; (c) feeling they are achieving to their full potential. Decrease in the percentage of women STEM scientists who report concerns about work-life balance and in discrepancies between men and women STEM scientists on all the above measures.

Conduct and analyze interviews/focus groups of STEM Faculty.

Years 2 - 5

Top Down: • Unit-level logic

model development and implementation

Conduct and analyze work environment survey.

Years 2 & 5

Top-down and bottom-up approaches will be mutually reinforcing and foster shared responsibility.

To what extent has the UC LEAF initiative promoted sustainability of university efforts to promote equity and diversity and ensure accountability for outcomes?

Top Down/ Bottom Up: • Process reports on

initiative successes and failures

• Facilitate candid exchange between faculty and program staff and between faculty and administration

• All successful LEAF initiatives will be supported internally for sustainability.

AAC members are informed and knowledgeable of LEAF program activities. STEM faculty are aware of and utilize AAC as an ally.

Conduct and analyze stakeholder interview/ focus groups (e.g., AAC members, other key informants, project personnel, and faculty focus groups).

Years 2 - 5

Monitor sustainability efforts.

Year 5

a UC LEAF Internal Evaluation Team will monitor progress of logic model development and implementation.


Participants

The primary target population for the UC LEAF project and evaluation are University of Cincinnati STEM faculty members. Instruments

University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey (Fall 2013) The University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey was adapted from the 2013 Michigan State University Work Environment Survey and the 2011 Purdue University Work Environment Survey and revised by the UC LEAF Project Team and E & A Center staff. The instrument collects STEM faculty-level data on human resources processes as well as campus and department climate. The original instrument was developed by the MSU ADAPP-ADVANCE Project Team and pilot tested on the Michigan State University (MSU) campus in 2009 and then administered institution-wide by MSU in 2009 and 2013 and by Purdue University in 2011. The online version of this instrument was developed by the E & A Center using Qualtrics® and is still under revision. It will be administered to masked1 email addresses of all tenure-track and fixed-term faculty at UC in Fall 2013. The draft of the 2013 University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey can be found in Appendix A. The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol was developed by the E & A Center to collect interview data from key informants involved in the UC LEAF project. The protocol consisted of 6 items collecting information regarding the interviewee’s personal views, responsibilities, and hopes for the UC LEAF ADVANCE project and their personal experiences as a member of the University of Cincinnati community. The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol can be found in Appendix B. Data Collection

Interviews with project personnel and other key informants were conducted by the external evaluator as an initial exploration of the UC LEAF project and University of Cincinnati institutional processes, structures, and norms that may be relevant to project goals and activities. Key informants were purposefully selected from members of the Project Leadership Team, Internal Advisory Committee, and the Accountability and Advocacy Council. Ten interviews were scheduled and completed between March 22 and May 17, 2013. Interviews were conducted by the PI of the external evaluation, Dr. Sarah Woodruff. Most interviews were conducted in person, while a few were conducted via phone, and each lasted approximately one hour. An interview protocol was followed (Appendix B) but interviewees also were encouraged to discuss issues of concern that were not specifically related to interview questions. A rich set of longitudinal human resource (HR) data for UC STEM faculty were collected by the UC LEAF Project Team and provided to the E & A Center between Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. These data include faculty hiring, promotion, and attrition information from 1990 to 2013 along with gender, race/ethnicity, college/department assignment, and highest degree earned. These HR data were used to conduct the faculty retention study. The complicated data cleaning procedures were done in a collaborative manner between the UC LEAF Project Team and the E & A Center during the UC LEAF Project Year 1. The initial data set included over 40,000 lines of records detailing faculty (one record for each faculty, each year) employed by the university in 1989 or newly hired since 1989 in all colleges/departments across different UC campuses. Institutional structural changes, inaccuracy and inconsistency of earlier data records, and large numbers of departments/units and employee titles were some of the obstacles encountered during the cleaning of 24 years of data. For example, departments in the College of Engineering (COE) together with some departments from other colleges were restructured as the College of Engineering and Applied 1 The masking process produces unidentifiable email addresses to protect the identity of respondents.


Science (CEAS) in 2011. New departments were added into COE (or CEAS) and the College of Medicine (COM) over the years and the names of departments also changed across years. As of 2013, the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S) has 8 STEM departments, CEAS has 15 department/units, and COM has 25 departments/units. In addition, besides the unqualified titles (i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor), UC offers over 40 qualified titles to its faculty, such as “Clinic,” “Educator,” “Field service,” and “Research,” at all academic rank levels. In general, the unqualified titles are in the tenured and tenure-track system, while the qualified titles are not. However, tenure status was not consistently recorded across the type of titles and across the years.

For the purpose of evaluation of this project, only faculty from the STEM departments of A&S, CEAS (or COE), and COM were included in the data set. Only unqualified titles were considered in the tenured and tenure-track system. In addition, the only qualified titles included in the faculty retention study were the “Research” titles. Due to some missing records from early years, only faculty hired since 1990 were included in the retention study. Despite the difficulties encountered during the data cleaning, the accessibility of this large, longitudinal database at UC during the first year of UC LEAF project will provide the evaluation team various opportunities to mine the data in different ways and triangulate these data with data collected from other sources during the life of the project.

Baseline indicator data (2012) for UC STEM faculty were collected by the Project Team from Human Resources data and information provided by the Provost’s office and provided to the E & A Center in June 2013. Electronic communications have been ongoing, starting January 2013, with potential match institutions of higher education. Preliminary data have been collected from The State University of New York, Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo). Institutional demographic data from the 2011-2012 Common Data Set were collected through university websites.

STEM faculty 2012 salary data were collected for UC STEM tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well as faculty with “Research” titles, in conjunction with the HR data. Gender equity in faculty salaries will be explored using regression modeling based on these data while controlling for other explanatory factors, such as race/ethnicity, discipline, current academic rank, years of prior experience, years of experience at current rank, and tenure status. This study will be conducted during Fall 2013 and will be reported in the Year 2 evaluation report.

In addition, STEM faculty 2013 office, laboratory, and other types of work space data were collected for UC STEM tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well as faculty with “Research” titles, in conjunction with the HR data. Gender equity in faculty work space will be explored using regression modeling based on these data while controlling for other explanatory factors, such as faculty race/ethnicity, discipline, current academic rank, years of prior experience, years of experience working at the current rank, and tenure status. This study will be conducted during Fall 2013 and also will be reported in the Year 2 evaluation report.

Data Analysis

Indicator Data Since only baseline (2012) indicator data were available, no year-to-year comparison analysis was conducted for this report. Once Year 1 (2013) indicator data are collected, a year-to-year comparison of faculty composition by gender, rank, and discipline will be conducted. Comparable match data from chosen IHE also were not available at this time. Once these match IHE data are collected, a cross-institution analysis will be conducted each year to compare the faculty composition by gender, rank, and discipline with peer institutions. In order to ensure the comparability between UC and the match IHEs, data from the 2011-2012 Common Data Set were collected electronically through available sources from each institution’s website and were used to compare demographic characteristics such as racial composition of students, gender and racial composition of faculty, and geographic location.


Interview Data All data from interviews with project personnel and other key informants were summarized to reflect themes that emerged from all discussions. Data were synthesized to protect the identity of individual interviewees and intended as formative feedback to project personnel for planning purposes. At the time of this report, analysis of the interview data is ongoing.

Following complete and iterative analysis of all interview data, these data will inform recommendations concerning: (a) strategies for monitoring processes and improving the effectiveness of project processes and structures, (b) interventions to improve collaboration among project groups, and (c) any potential need to reassess project goals in light of progress or barriers. These recommendations will be shared with UC LEAF project leaders in Fall 2013 and discussed and contextualized in the Year 2 External Evaluation Report in June 2014.

Faculty Retention Study Nonparametric survival analysis was conducted using human resources data on 722 tenured and tenured-track STEM faculty, as well as faculty with “Research” titles, who were employed by UC since 1990 in the three colleges (A&S, CEAS, and COM). The attrition2 of these faculty members was tracked between 1990 and 2013. Gender differences in faculty retention/attrition rates and patterns during the past 23 years were explored for all faculty, at the college level, and by each academic rank. In addition, faculty members were categorized into three hiring cohorts: Cohort 1 – hired between 1990 and 1997; Cohort 2 – hired between 1998 and 2005; and Cohort 3 – hired between 2006 and 2013. Gender comparisons also were conducted for each hiring cohort. A summary of faculty retention study results can be found in the Findings section of this report; full results from the study can be found in Appendix C.

2 Attrition includes both voluntary non-retirement and retirement/deceased.


Findings

Evaluation of Processes and Project Implementation

The University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for Women STEM Faculty (UC LEAF) project held their project launch event in April 2013.

University of Cincinnati LEAF Project Launch Event On Monday, April 8, 2013, the University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (UC LEAF) Project Team hosted their launch event at the Tangeman University Center (TUC) at the University of Cincinnati. The meeting agenda included a large group session as well as two breakout sessions; one specific to women STEM faculty. Dr. Melanie Cushion, LEAF Program Director, facilitated the sessions. Between 90 and 100 project personnel and University of Cincinnati faculty and staff, including members of the UC LEAF Leadership Team, were present for the large group session; roughly 65 of these participants were female. President Ono welcomed the participants and offered opening remarks from the institutional perspective. He also provided information regarding institutional commitment. President Ono encouraged faculty and staff to participate in UC LEAF project activities and to commit to the project objectives. Following President Ono’s introduction, keynote speaker, Scott E. Page presented his research and experience with improving collective performance and decision-making through diversity. Two simultaneous break-out sessions were offered following the keynote session. One of the break-out sessions was offered specifically to women STEM faculty and included a panel of senior women STEM faculty who responded to prepared questions as well as impromptu questions from the audience. Approximately 25-30 women attended this session. The other breakout session offered was hosted by the keynote speaker, Scott E. Page and was intended as a working group to discuss and work through strategies for successfully accomplishing UC LEAF project goals. This session was attended by 20-25 participants 6 of which were female. Indicator Data

One of the main goals of the UC LEAF project is to increase the number of women in STEM faculty positions and to improve the success of all women STEM faculty, as measured by outcomes related to their retention and promotion. In order to assess the practical significance of gains for this goal at the University of Cincinnati, indicator data were collected and will be monitored across project years. Indicator data for University of Cincinnati will be used in two ways for the external evaluation. First, in addition to the baseline data collected this year, indicator data will be collected and organized for future analyses including year-to-year project impact analysis. Second, two similar universities were chosen for future comparative analysis to determine the relative significance of change at UC. Baseline Indicator Data The required indicator data tables (submitted with the UC LEAF project annual report) provide an overview of progress of the UC LEAF initiative on required NSF indicator measures. While these data represent some aspects regarding the status of women STEM faculty, they are not particularly informative when reviewed individually. While the indicator data tables are very useful for observing


changes across years, they may obscure movement of women faculty between ranks and do not provide information on the overall retention of women STEM faculty. For this reason, the Evaluation Team will synthesize independent sets of indicator data to provide a more detailed picture of faculty movement during the years of the project. These syntheses will be presented in the Year 2 report. For Year 1, some historical baseline indicator data were collected. For Year 2, comparative data will be collected. Data available for comparison will include distribution of tenured and tenure-track STEM faculty, new hires, promotion with and without tenure, retirement and non-retirement attrition, and leadership positions of STEM departments in the STEM colleges. Changes in numbers of female faculty will be compared to changes in numbers of male faculty for each category and will be reported beginning in the Year 2 evaluation report. A full year-to-year analysis in which hiring, promotion, and attrition will be traced from the baseline year.

Match IHE Comparison Data A primary goal of the UC LEAF Project is to increase the number of women in STEM faculty positions and to improve their success as measured by outcomes related to retention and promotion. In order to assess the practical significance of gains for this goal at University of Cincinnati, two comparable institutions of higher education were chosen and will be monitored across project years. The State University of New York (SUNY) Buffalo and the University of Kentucky (UK) were suggested by the Project Team as frequently used peer institutions. Data analysis using the 2011-2012 Common Data Set was completed to determine whether peer institutions were demographically equivalent based upon location and an initial comparison of faculty and student body composition and characteristics (% female and % minority). The number of comparable departments within the STEM colleges were then collected through university websites. Table 2 displays pertinent institutional characteristics for University of Cincinnati and the comparison sites and Table 3 displays a crosswalk of academic departments for each institution. In project Years 2-5, the Evaluation Team will collect data from internal contacts at the peer sites who have access to institutional data. The State University of New York Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo) and the University of Kentucky have agreed to cooperate with this evaluation and provide data for this comparative study. To date, preliminary data has been received from SUNY Buffalo. To the extent possible, E & A Center staff will attempt to collect comparable data from each site and apply the following assumptions:

1. Indicator data for the University of Cincinnati will be collected for only colleges and departments identified as STEM (and recognized by NSF as such) and will be included in these evaluation analyses.

2. The data will represent headcount data rather than full-time equivalent (FTE) data, but appointments of less than 50% time will not be counted.

3. Data will not represent adjunct faculty members, instructors (not identified as professors), or any staff appointments. It may be possible that courtesy appointments will be included, as it is not possible to distinguish these categories amongst available data.

4. Dual–appointment faculty members (i.e., those working in two or more colleges) may be double counted, but these individuals represent a relatively small proportion of the population.


Table 2. UC LEAF Institutional Site Characteristics

University of

Cincinnati University of

Buffalo University of

Kentucky

Locale Midwest Midwest Midwest

Undergraduate Student Enrollment

23,096 19,334 22,711

Demographics of Student Body

African American 7.8% American Indian 0.2% Asian American 2.9% Hispanic 2.5%

African American 6.5% American Indian 0.2% Asian American 10.4% Hispanic: 7.2%

African American 3.8% American Indian 0.2% Asian American 1.5% Hispanic: 2.9%

Number of Full-time Faculty

1,769 1,676 1,725

Demographics of Faculty

14.9% Non-White 46.4% Female



STEM Initiatives 2012 ADVANCE IT grant

recipient None Reported None Reported

Note. Data collected from 2011-2012 Common Data Set. Table 3. UC LEAF Department Crosswalk, University of Cincinnati, SUNY Buffalo, and University of Kentucky

University of

Cincinnati SUNY

Buffalo University of

Kentucky

Arts and Sciences

Anthropology Anthropology Anthropology

Biological Sciences Biological Sciences Biology

Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry

Geography Geography Geography

Geology Geology Earth & Environmental Sciences

Mathematical Sciences Mathematics Mathematics

Physics Physics Physics and Astronomy

Psychology Psychology Psychology

College of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Aerospace Engineering Mechanical & Aerospace —

Biomedical Engineering Biomedical Biosystems Engineering (?)

Chemical Engineering Chemical & Biological Chemical Engineering

Civil Engineering Civil, Structural, and Environmental Civil Engineering

Computer Science Computer Science & Engineering Computer Science

Construction Management Industrial & Systems Engineering

Department of CEAS — —

Electronic & Computing Systems Electrical Electrical Engineering



University of Cincinnati

SUNY Buffalo

University of Kentucky

Energy — —

Engineering Education — —

Environmental Engineering & Science

— —

Fire Science — —

Materials Engineering — Materials Engineering

Mechanical Engineering Mechanical & Aerospace Mechanical Engineering

Mechanical Engineering Technology — —

College of Medicine (School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences)

Anesthesiology Anesthesiology Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology Research — —

Can/Cell Biology — —

Center for Imaging Research Radiology Radiology

Public Health Sciences — —

Dermatology — —

Emergency Medicine Emergency Medicine Emergency Medicine

Environmental Health — —

Family Medicine Family Medicine Family and Community Medicine

Hoxworth Research — —

Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine

Medical Education — —

Molecular & Cellular Physiology — —

Molecular Genetics — —

Neurology Neurology Neurology

Neurosurgery Neurosurgery Neurosurgery

Obstetrics & Gynecology Gynecology-Obstetrics Obstetrics & Gynecology

Ophthalmology Ophthalmology Ophthalmology

Pathology & Lab Medicine Pathology and Anatomical Sciences

Pathology & Laboratory

Pediatrics Pediatrics Pediatrics

Pharmacology & Cell Biophysics Pharmacology & Toxicology Molecular & Biomedical Pharmacology

Physiology Physiology & Biophysics Physiology

Psychiatry Psychiatry Psychiatry

Radiation Oncology Radiation Oncology Radiation Medicine

Surgery Surgery Surgery

Interview Data

Key informant interviews were conducted by the external evaluator as an initial exploration of the UC LEAF project and University of Cincinnati institutional processes, structures, and norms that may be relevant to project goals and activities. Key informants were purposefully selected from members of the Project Leadership Team, Internal Advisory Committee, and the Accountability and Advocacy Council. Ten interviews were scheduled and completed between March 22 and May 17, 2013. Interviews were


conducted by the PI of the external evaluation, Dr. Sarah Woodruff. Most interviews were conducted in person, while a few were conducted via phone, and each lasted approximately one hour. An interview protocol was followed but interviewees also were encouraged to discuss issues of concern that were not specifically related to interview questions. All data were synthesized to protect the identity of individual interviewees. The data collected during these semi-structured interviews are intended as formative feedback to project personnel for planning purposes. At the time of this report, analysis of the interview data is ongoing. A brief descriptive, thematic summary of the aggregate data is presented here. All data and observations are tentative and subject to verification by project personnel. The interviews sought to collect data to inform these questions:

1. To what extent are the goals and philosophies of key UC LEAF project personnel internally consistent, aligned with those stated by the project, and reflective of the project conceptual 3-pronged approach—bottom-up, top-down and advocacy and accountability?

2. What is the shared understanding of the leadership and management roles and responsibilities of

key UC LEAF project personnel and groups? To what extent do the current leadership and management structures and processes facilitate or inhibit efficient project group and individual work?

3. What is the relationship among LEAF initiatives directed by each of the project’s committees and

key personnel? To what extent: (a) are the activities of each group adding value to those of other committees/staff, (b) are there (missed) opportunities for cross-pollination, (c) are the activities aligned with UC LEAF vision and mi ssion, and (d) are there gaps or overlaps in the work of the committees?

Following complete and iterative analysis of all interview data, these data will inform recommendations concerning: (a) strategies for monitoring processes and improving the effectiveness of project processes and structures, (b) interventions to improve collaboration among project groups, and (c) any potential need to reassess project goals in light of progress or barriers. These recommendations will be shared with UC LEAF project leaders in Fall 2013 and discussed and contextualized in the Year 2 External Evaluation Report in June 2014. Ø To what extent are the goals and philosophies of key UC LEAF project personnel internally consistent,

aligned with those stated by the project, and reflective of the project conceptual 3-pronged approach—bottom-up, top-down, and advocacy and accountability?

The most prominent themes, related to this question, emerging from interviews included: high expectations for changing university culture and enhancing faculty “community”; desire for UC LEAF to be viewed as more than a “women’s initiative”; general agreement on priority project goals and activities; and general agreement on potential obstacles to project progress. All interviewees shared expectations that UC LEAF would positively impact university culture, reduce intolerance of difference and isolation of marginalized groups, and facilitate networking opportunities for women faculty. All interviewees were able to clearly articulate the broad goals of the project and expressed high levels of commitment to those goals. Though most interviewees were passionate about the project’s goals and enthusiastic about the project, it was not observed that any interviewee’s commitment to the project was based upon a personal agenda that may have impeded the individual’s ability to fulfill commitments to the project. In other words, interviewees seemed to maintain sufficient objectivity regarding the project’s issues to fulfill their respective responsibilities effectively. Most interviewees noted a desire for UC LEAF to be viewed as a vehicle for expanding the current view of diversity beyond issues of race/ethnicity and gender. One interviewee hoped that the initiative would promote a “more holistic view of high quality” – one that would be inclusive of all faculty. With very few


exceptions, interviewees were quite familiar with the issues faced by women faculty and believed that increasing the gender diversity of faculty was a positive and pressing need at UC. Interviewees expressed that priority activities of UC LEAF in Year 2 should include attention to search and hiring processes and collecting and using data (primarily Work Environment Survey data) to increase awareness of diversity and equity issues. Interviewees also agreed that a potential barrier to moving the project forward was “institutional rhetoric” as a substitute for authentic commitment of leadership to make change. Ø What is the shared understanding of the leadership and management roles and responsibilities of key

UC LEAF project personnel and groups? To what extent do the current leadership and management structures and processes facilitate or inhibit efficient project group and individual work?

The most prominent themes emerging from interviews included: issues and challenges related to communications, and perceptions regarding decision making authority, roles, and responsibilities. Not surprisingly, communications, both internal and external, were discussed by all interviewees. Issues and challenges regarding internal communications were mentioned more frequently than those related to communications with individuals and groups outside of the project team and committees. Communications “mix-ups” were described. Most interviewees agreed that communications should err on the side of being more inclusive, during the early stages of the project. Related to issues of communication were insights of most interviewees indicating a need for regularly scheduled, and in some cases, more frequent committee and project team meetings groups. Issues with external communications also were noted. Approximately half of those interviewed suggested that while the launch event was positively received, there was a low awareness of UC LEAF, even among women STEM faculty. Most interviewees agreed that there continues to be some confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of individuals and committees, and suggested that the project team should make it a priority to resolve and communicate decisions regarding “who is in charge of what.” Interviewees commented that the current project leadership and committee structure seemed appropriate but would reserve judgment until roles and responsibilities were better clarified. Ø What is the relationship among LEAF initiatives directed by each of the project’s committees and key

personnel? To what extent: (a) are the activities of each group adding value to those of other committees/staff, (b) are there (missed) opportunities for cross-pollination, (c) are the activities aligned with UC LEAF vision and mission, and (d) are there gaps or overlaps in the work of the committees?

Limited data were collected regarding this question, likely because most activities of the project are in development or in very early stages of implementation. The most prominent theme emerging from interviews was regarding the levels and types of involvement of project personnel and stakeholders. Interviewees generally indicated a desire to be more meaningfully involved in shaping the future of the project and agreed that the role and work of the committees has been unclear. Interviewees further agreed that the collective capacity and expertise of the committees is largely under-utilized at this time. Interviewees also concurred that project success would be dependent upon the leadership of properly positioned individuals who would hold others to high expectations.


Faculty Retention Study

In Spring 2013, Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center analyzed human resources data on 722 tenured, tenured-track, and fix-term3 STEM faculty4 employed by the University of Cincinnati since 1990 in the three UC LEAF participating colleges, i.e., the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S), the College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS),5 and the College of Medicine (COM). The attrition6 of these faculty members was tracked between 1990 and 2013. Faculty members were categorized into three hiring cohorts: Cohort 1 – hired between 1990 and 1997; Cohort 2 – hired between 1998 and 2005; and Cohort 3 – hired between 2006 and 2013. Since the data used to create the models only tracked faculty hiring and attrition since 1990, faculty hiring and departures prior to 1990 did not inform the survival analysis. This study has mined the University’s own rich data sources in order to provide robust analyses that can support the University in exploring the retention/attrition patterns of STEM women faculty. The models provide a snapshot of how successfully the University is addressing faculty retention issues. Over time, as more data are added to the models, they have the potential to predict with a high degree of accuracy retention outcomes for subgroups of faculty. Key findings of the analyses suggest: 1. Overall, the retention rates for STEM women faculty were similar to the rates for STEM men

faculty during the past 23 years. 54% of women and 52% of men faculty hired since 1990 were still working at the university in 2013. The median time to departure was 10 years for women and 9 years for men.

2. Patterns in STEM women and men faculty leaving the university were similar. Attrition for both genders is low during the first 3 years (3-6% of women and 7-8% of men were likely to leave UC), increased from Year 4 to Year 6 (10-12% of women and 9-11% of men were likely to leave UC), decreased in Year 7, and then returned to higher attrition rates in Year 8. Women’s attrition peaks again at a later stage of their careers at Year 17 (14%), while a similar peak of attrition is postponed to Year 22 for men (11%). No statistically significant gender differences were found regarding women’s and men’s rates of attrition.

3. Comparisons of time to departure for each hiring cohort, for each college, and for each rank

showed no statistically significant gender differences. However, potential differences in the survival times existed across colleges, with the College of Arts and Sciences demonstrating the longest median survival time for women faculty (17 years) and the College of Medicine having the shortest time (8 years).

4. From date of hire, higher percentages of women than men stayed at the university in all

comparisons, except for Cohort 1 (hired between 1990-1997; 30% of women and 38% of men

3 Tenured and tenure-track faculty only included Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors. Instructors and Adjunct titles were not included. Fix-term faculty only included Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, and Research Professor. Other qualified titles, such as Clinical, Educator, Field Service, and Librarian, were not included. 4 HR data also included 479 STEM faculty who were with the university in 1989. Among them, 142 faculty were still working at the university. However, the university database does not have consistent record of hiring data nor other HR information for these faculty. Therefore they were not included in this retention study. 5 College of Engineering (COE) became CEAS in 2011. Some faculty from the Department of Biomedical Engineering were included in CEAS if their initial college was categorized as COM/ENG, while some were included in COM if their initial college was categorized as COM. 6 Attrition includes both voluntary non-retirement and retirement/deceased.


were still at the university in 2013), for the College of Medicine (41% of women and 44% of men), and for those hired as associate professors (58% of women and 63% of men).

5. Although not statistically significant, female faculty at each rank had slightly shorter median survival times than did their male peers.

One advantage of this study is that by only counting faculty hired since 1990, the data set omits the left censored data, i.e., avoids underestimating the length of employment for those faculty hired before 1990. However, the limitation of this method is that faculty hired prior to 1990 and still working at the university were not represented in this data set. These are the faculty who have served at the university the longest. Therefore, the overall estimations of time to departure, as well the estimations at the college level and for each beginning rank (especially for those hired as assistant professors and associate professors), were underestimated. In addition, interpretation of some of the disaggregated results should be done with caution due to small sample sizes. As more data are added to this model over time, comparisons can be made between the retention of faculty hired prior to, during, and following the University’s targeted efforts to improve faculty quality and diversity. Currently, the model provides important and timely data that can inform areas for further investigation. Further analyses will provide a clearer picture of issues that may impact the retention of STEM women at the University of Cincinnati.


Continuing Evaluation Activities

Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center (E & A Center) along with internal project evaluators developed a summative evaluation plan that included internal and external evaluation activities (included in the Year 1 Project Report). External evaluation activities included in this plan can be found in Table 1 of this report. The following activities are included in the evaluation plan:

1. The first institutional climate survey will be administered in the Fall 2013 and data collected will be analyzed by the E & A external evaluation team.

2. Continue to analyze interview data from key informants.

3. Collect and analyze data collected from project activities such as workshops and seminars.

4. Conduct focus groups and interviews of STEM faculty and STEM Department Heads.

5. Continue to collect, clean, and analyze indicator data, including hiring, promotion, attrition, and tenure outcomes.

6. Develop short reports, as requested, such as salary, space, and start-up package analysis.


Summary and Observations

Notable Observations This synthesis of preliminary data is not intended to render any judgment regarding project progress to date. These data will be reviewed and included in the Year 2 External Evaluation Report within the context of project goals. Brief observations of note include:

• All key informant interviewees were candid in their responses and genuinely interested in making contributions and receiving feedback to improve the project. Project leadership should carefully deliberate and then clearly communicate regarding the roles and responsibilities of affiliated groups and individuals in order to ensure that all resources are effectively aligned and directed toward project goals.

• Data collection efforts are commendable, especially for the longitudinal Human Resources database maintained by the University, considering the early stage of the project. The Evaluation Team will offer specific recommendations for future years of data collection in order to standardize collection activities. A precise plan will allow for more rigorous comparisons across years of the project.

• Successful project launch activities and promotional materials should start the project in the right direction in terms of developing faculty awareness. Some groups may not have been able to attend the launch event and therefore a plan for promoting the project further and disseminating remaining promotional materials would be recommended.

• Challenges related to communication are expected but should be addressed on a number of levels, particularly in areas where lack of or unclear communications are perceived to be detrimental to project progress. Though it may be helpful to employ a communications expert to advise this work, all project personnel should be more mindful of communications issues.

• Preliminary faculty retention study found no significant gender differences for UC STEM faculty retention rates and patterns. More data will be drawn from different sources during the next few years to provide a more complete picture of the diversity issues and faculty work environment at UC.


Appendices

Appendix A. University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey ................................................ 29

Appendix B. ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol ............................................................... 49

Appendix C. University of Cincinnati Faculty Retention Study Report .................................................... 50

UC Faculty Work Environment Survey, Fall 2013

UC WE Survey

University Of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey, 2013

As part of the NSF funded UC-LEAF initiative to enhance the diversity and quality of UC faculty and their work environment, the President’s Office and the LEAF team are seeking the assistance of all fixed term, tenure-stream and tenured faculty on campus. This is an institutional research project in which we are assessing specific aspects of faculty experiences at UC such as climate, diversity, civility, and the hiring and promotion process and policies. The information from these surveys will be used to determine changes in these areas over the last four years, determine areas in need of improvement, and to guide long-term program and policy decisions across the University. Your input is therefore critical and would be greatly appreciated and valued.

Your participation in this confidential survey is strictly voluntary. You may refuse to participate, refuse to answer certain questions or discontinue participation at any time without penalty. Refusal to participate will not affect your employment in any way. The survey will require only about 20 minutes of your time to complete (between 15 and 25 minutes). All information and responses will be kept strictly confidential and will only be seen by members of the research team. Data gathered from the survey will be summarized and presented in aggregate so that no single individual or small subgroup of respondents can be identified. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you prefer to complete a hard copy of the survey, please go to the following link which will provide you instructions for obtaining, completing and returning a hard copy: http://www.units.muohio.edu/ohioeval/resources.htm

Participation in this study does not involve any known physical, financial, emotional or legal risk to you. You will not receive financialcompensation for participation but your responses will contribute to improved faculty diversity, quality and work environments.

You are welcome to contact Dr. Sarah B. Woodruff, the Director of Ohio's Evaluation and Assessment Center, at any time if you have questions about the survey, at 513-529-1686 or by email at [email protected]. You may also contact the UC-LEAF Program Director, xxx, at 513-xxx-xxxx.

By selecting yes below and then proceeding with the survey, you are voluntarily consenting to participate in the survey and allowing your responses to be used for institutional research purposes.

Yes, I voluntarily agree to participate in this survey and allow my responses to be used for institutional researchpurposes.

No, I do not wish to participate in this survey.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help us understand the current work environment for UC faculty.

* You chose not to participate in this survey, is this correct?

Yes, I want to close this page.

No. I changed my mind and I want to complete this survey (This will lead you to the beginning of this survey).

Page 1 of 20Qualtrics Survey Software

6/27/2013https://miamioh.qualtrics.com/ControlPanel/Ajax.php?action=GetSurveyPrintPreview&T=...

Appendix A

Evaluation of UC LEAF 29

Recruiting and Hiring Process1). Please rate your level of agreement with these statements about the hiring of tenure-stream faculty in your department. We are interested in the responses of both fixed-term and tenure-stream faculty.

NOTE: Several of the following questions below ask about your unit -- this refers to your department. If you are in a unit with no separate departments, such as a school or institute, refer to the whole unit.

Strongly Agree Agree

Neither Agree norDisagree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The process for hiring new tenure-stream faculty is clearlydefined.

A conscious effort is made to generate a diverse applicant pool for tenure-stream faculty.

The criteria for hiring new tenure-stream faculty are established and clearly communicated to all departmentmembers.

The process for hiring new tenure-stream faculty is consistently followed across applicants for positions within the department.

I believe the process for hiring tenure-stream faculty in mydepartment is fair.

Please note that if you need more time to finish this survey you may close out of this page, which will save your current responses, and then return to the link provided in the email to finish at any time later.

If you have any questions about using this online survey system, please contact Yue Li at 513-529-1686 or by email at [email protected].

Promotion and Tenure1). Please rate your level of agreement with these statements about the promotion and tenure process for all fixed term and tenure-stream faculty in your department


Neither Agree

norDisagree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

I have a clear understanding of the promotion/tenure process in my department.

I have a clear understanding of the specific criteria used to make promotion/tenure decisions in my department.

Individuals in my department receive regular feedback on progress toward their promotion/tenure.

Standards for receiving promotion/tenure are consistently applied.

I believe that the promotion/tenure process in my department is fair.

Promotion/tenure recommendations are based on objective standards.






Annual Performance Evaluation/Review1). Please rate your level of agreement with these statements about the performance evaluation/review and feedback in your department.



Strongly Disagree

I am comfortable asking my department head/chair/supervisor questions about performance expectations.

The criteria used in my annual performance are closely linked to the criteria used in promotion/tenure decisions.

I receive helpful performance feedback.

I believe that the performance evaluation/review process in my department is fair.

The criteria used in my annual performance evaluation/review are clearly communicated to me.

I receive a formal performance evaluation/review at least once a year.

I receive a written copy of my annual evaluation.



Diversity Issues at UC: General Climate1). With respect to the general diversity climate in your primary department, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? We are interested in your perceptions of the climate in your department.



Strongly Disagree

Faculty in my department are given feedback and evaluated fairly, regardless of their race/ethnicity, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, or nationality.

My department has a track record of hiring and promoting employees objectively, regardless of their race/ethnicity, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, or nationality.

Assignments (e.g., teaching, committee work) in my department are given based on the skills and abilities of individuals.

My department’s actions demonstrate a strong commitment to having a diverse faculty.

I feel I have been treated differently in my department because of my race/ethnicity, sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, or nationality.






Diversity Issues at UC: Women2). With respect to the recruitment of, climate/environment for, and leadership of women faculty, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your primary department?


Neither Agree

norDisagree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The climate/environment for women in my department is good.

My department has too few women faculty in leadershippositions.

My department has made an effort to promote women into leadership positions.

My department has actively recruited women faculty.

Discrimination against women is a problem in my department.

My department has taken steps to enhance the climate/environment for women.

Women and men faculty receive equal treatment in mydepartment.

There are too few women faculty in my department.






Diversity Issues at UC: Faculty of Color3). With respect to the recruitment of, climate/environment, leadership of faculty of color to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your primary department?

Faculty of Color: Black/African American, Asian, Native American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Chicano//Latino



Strongly Disagree

My department has actively recruited faculty of color.

There are too few faculty of color in my department.

My department has made an effort to promote faculty of color into leadership positions.

My department has taken steps to enhance the climate/environment for faculty of color.

Faculty of color and majority faculty receive equal treatment in my department.

The climate/environment for faculty of color in my department is good.

My department has too few faculty of color in leadership positions.

Discrimination against faculty of color is a problem in my department.

4). If you would like to provide comments on any issue related to diversity at UC (not limited to women or faculty of color)please do so below.



Mentoring at UC1). Please respond to the following questions regarding mentoring at UC.

Yes No

Does your department have a formal mentoring program (e.g., mentors formally assigned to junior faculty)?

Is there anyone whom you currently regard as a formal mentor?

Is there anyone whom you currently regard as an informal mentor (someone who gives advice and counsel on career issues and/or sponsors or advocates for you, but NOT formally assigned by your department)?

Are you currently mentoring a faculty member at UC (either formally or informally)?

Have you received any training in how to be an effective mentor?

Does your department reward faculty for serving in mentoring roles?






Mentoring at UC2). Please indicate the extent of effectiveness regarding the formal and informal mentoring you are receiving.

Very Effective Effective

Neither Effective

norIneffective Ineffective

Very Ineffective

How effective or ineffective is the formal mentoring program in your department?

How effective or ineffective is the informal mentoring you arereceiving?

3). Please indicate the number of people you currently regard as a mentor.

None One 2 or 3More Than

3

How many people do you currently regard as a formalmentor?

How many people do you currently regard as an informalmentor?

4). Are your mentors:

Male

Female

Both (If multiple mentors)






Conditions and Relationships in Your Department1). Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning conditions and relationships in your department.



Strongly Disagree

People in my department care about my general satisfaction at work.

My contributions to my department are recognized and valued.

I am treated with respect by my department head or chair.

I am treated with respect by students.

I am treated with respect by colleagues.

People in my department care about my personal well-being.

2). Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning conditions and relationships in your department.



Strongly Disagree

I feel I can voice my opinions openly in my department.

Major decisions are made with adequate input from the faculty.

It is clear how resources (e.g. space, funded research assistants, etc.) are allocated.

Major decisions are made and implemented with adequate explanation.

It is clear how teaching assignments and teaching assistant distributions are made.

It is clear how salary raises are determined.

It is clear how committee assignments aredetermined.

My department operates in a transparent way.

Faculty who report concerns or inappropriate conduct that they observe or experience do not need to be concerned about retribution.




3). Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning conditions and relationships in your department.

"In my department, it is generally accepted that people ..."



Strongly Disagree

Need to make work their top priority.

Must take time away from their families to get work done.

Might share concerns about their family.

Can get advice about family issues.

Can talk about family problems.

Have to put their family second to their jobs.



Teaching Academic Courses at UCWhat is the typical teaching load each year in your primary department?(If the number is zero, please enter "0". Do not leave any item blank.)

Number of:

1). Undergraduate courses:

2). Graduate courses:

3). Independent studies/directed/research/readings:

In the past five (5) years . . .

4). How many new courses (courses that you have not taught previously)have you prepared for your primary department?

5). Of these courses, how many did you propose?

6). Of these courses, how many were you asked or required to develop?






Sevice at UC - Department or College Level1). Please indicate on which department or college level committees you have served at UC during the last five (5) years (or since coming to UC if you have been at UC less than five years) and your highest level of involvement.

Not Asked to Serve

Was Asked Didn't Serve

Served as Member

Chaired Committee N/A

Space

Salaries

Tenure/Promotion/Reappointment

Faculty Search

Curriculum

Graduate Admissions

Faculty Affairs / Heads or Chairs Advisory

If you have been asked to serve or served on other department/college level committees, please provide the information for those committees below:

Other Department Committee (1):

Other Department Committee (2):

Other College Committee (3):

Other College Committee (4):

Level of involvement in...

Was Asked Didn't Serve Served as Member Chaired Committee

${q://QID155/ChoiceTextEntryValue/1}




2). In a typical year, on how many committees at each level -- department, college, and university -- are you asked to serve and in what capacity?

Department Level College Level University Level

Asked to serve:

Served:

Asked to chair:

Chaired:






Leadership1). Have you even been asked to or served in any of the following positions during your time at UC:

Not AskedWas Asked Didn't Serve Served

Assistant or Associate Department Head, Chair, or Director

Department Head, Chair, or Director

Director of Center, Institute, or Program

Assistant or Associate Dean

Dean

A leadership position in a professional organization/society in your discipline

2). If you were asked but turned down any of the previously stated positions, please indicate why. (Please check all that apply)

Existing service load

Will not enhance career

More time to perform research/scholarship/creative works

Not rewarded

Won’t be supported

Not interested in administrative positions

Work life balance concerns

Other (please specify)

3). Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.



Strongly Disagree

I would like to serve in a leadership role in the broader UC community (college or university level).

I would like to serve in a leadership role within my department.

I am concerned that if I assume a leadership role in the broader UC community I will not receive the support I need to be successful.

I am confident of my ability to influence a group that I lead.

I am concerned that if I assume a leadership role within my department I will not receive the support I need to be successful.

I know what it takes to make a group accomplish its task.

I have the skills needed to be an effective leader at work.




4). During the past three (3) years how many times have you been encouraged, by anyone at UC to pursue a leadership position within each of the following:

Never Once 2 - 3 Times 4 - 5 TimesMore Than 5

Times

Your department

Your college

The broader UC community

External community

A professional organization/society in your discipline



Resource and Workload Allocation1). Please indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the allocation of resources and workload in your department.

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied N/A

Distribution of teaching load

Research Assistants

Computer equipment

Internal funding to supportteaching/research/scholarship/creative works, travel

Modern research/lab space

Distribution of committee responsibilities

Raises

Clerical/Administrative Support

Lab equipment






Workplace Incivility1). Within the last year while working at UC have you been in a situation where any of your superiors or co-workers:

NeverOnce or Twice Sometimes Often

Many Times

Put you down or was condescending to you.

Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you.

Devalued your work and efforts.

Inappropriately interrupted or "talked over" you while you were speaking.

Ignored or excluded you from professionalcamaraderie (e.g., given you the "silent treatment").

Made false negative statements or circulated negative rumors about you.

Paid little attention to your statements or showed little interest in your opinion.

Addressed you in unprofessional terms.

Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion about personal matters.

Doubted your judgment on a matter over whichyou have responsibility.



Sexual Harassmentharassment is any unwelcome sexual advance; requesting of sexual favors; or other written, verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

1. submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment,education, or participation in a University activity;2. submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for, or a factor in, decisions affecting thatindividual’s employment, education, or participation in a University activity; or3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s employment or academicperformance or creating an intimidating, offensive, or hostile environment for that individual’s employment, education, orparticipation in a University activity.

Please use this definition as you respond to the next three questions.

1). Within the last five (5) years, how often, if at all, have you experienced sexual harassment at UC?

Never

1 to 2 Times

3 to 5 Times

More Than 5 Times




2). In your department, how prevalent are instances of unwanted and uninvited sexual attention within the last five (5) years?

Very Prevalent

Somewhat Prevalent

Neutral

Not Very Prevalent

Not at All Prevalent

3). Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about sexual harassment at UC.



Strongly Disagree

Sexual harassment is a big problem on campus.

I know the steps to take if a person comes to me with a problem with sexual harassment.

The process for resolving complaints about sexual harassment at UC is effective.

Sexual harassment is taken seriously on campus.

Click to write the question text

Click to write Choice 1





UC's Culture of High Performance1). Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement about the culture of high performance at UC.



Strongly Disagree

UC promotes a culture of high performance.




2). The following attributes have been identified as important in promoting a culture of high performance. In your view, to what extent are the following attributes representative of the culture in your department?



Strongly Disagree

Department goals are clearly articulated and measurable.

Rewards, incentives, resources and staff support are allocated in ways that effectively supportinstitutional goals.

Taking risks in my work is supported.

High standards have been set, and individualsare held accountable for meeting thesestandards.

Administrative processes to support my work are streamlined and efficient.

3). The following attributes have been identified as important in promoting a culture of high performance. In your view, to what extent are the following attributes representative of the culture in the university more broadly?



Strongly Disagree

Institutional goals are clearly articulated and measurable.

Rewards, incentives, resources and staff support are allocated in ways that effectively supportinstitutional goals.

Taking risks in my work is supported.

High standards have been set, and individualsare held accountable for meeting thesestandards.

Administrative processes to support my work are streamlined and efficient.






Beliefs and Attitudes about University of Cincinnati1). Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of the following statements concerning University of Cincinnati.



Strongly Disagree

I enjoy discussing UC with people outside it.

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career at UC.

UC is committed to recruiting and retaining faculty of color.

Over the past 6 months my college has demonstrated increased commitment to addressing diversity/inclusiveness issues.

UC has a strong commitment to recruiting and retaining female faculty.

UC is committed to recruiting and retaining high quality faculty.

UC’s policies and practices effectively support a diverse faculty.

UC’s actions demonstrate a strong commitment to having a diverse faculty.

I do not feel like "part of the family" at UC.






UC Programs, Resources, and Policies1). UC has implemented a number of programs and provided resources designed to improve the working environments of faculty. In the questions below, please help us to evaluate some of these campus-wide initiatives.

UnawareAware Have Not

Used Used SatisfiedUsed

Dissatisfied

UC's new Faculty Hiring Toolkit

UC's new Faculty Promotion and TenureToolkit

UC's new Faculty Annual Performance Review Toolkit

UC's new Faculty Mentoring Toolkit

Suspension of the tenure clock (for example: child-birth or adoption, sickness)

Dual career hiring program

Family Resource Center

Campus Child Care

Women’s Resource Center

Faculty Organizational and DevelopmentPrograms (FOD)

Office for Inclusion and InterculturalInitiatives (Formally Affirmative Action, Compliance and Monitoring)

Faculty Mentoring Program

New Faculty Orientation

Parental Leave Policy

Modified Duties Policy




2). I was informed about these programs/resources/policies by:(Please check all that apply)

Provost Office Dean

DepartmentHead/Chair Colleagues

Diversity Catalyst

UC LEAF Project

UC's new Faculty Hiring Toolkit

UC's new Faculty Promotion and TenureToolkit

UC's new Faculty Annual Performance Review Toolkit

UC's new Faculty Mentoring Toolkit

Suspension of the tenure clock (for example: child-birth or adoption, sickness)

Dual career hiring program

Family Resource Center

Campus Child Care

Women’s Resource Center

Faculty Organizational and DevelopmentPrograms (FOD)

Office for Inclusion and InterculturalInitiatives (Formally Affirmative Action, Compliance and Monitoring)

Faculty Mentoring Program

New Faculty Orientation

Parental Leave Policy

Modified Duties Policy

3). What type of communications have you received from the UC LEAF Project?(Please check all that apply.)

Email

Flyer

The UC LEAF Website: http://www.uc.edu/orgs/ucleaf.html

Newsletter

Programs/workshops

Personal communication from the UC LEAF Project

I have received NO communications from the UC LEAF Project.

Other (please specify)






Satisfaction at UC1). Please indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with various aspects of life at UC.

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied Neutral

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied N/A

Balance between professional and personallife.

The way your career has progressed at UC ingeneral.

Amount of social interaction with members of my department.

All things considered, your position at UC.

Your current salary.

2). If you would like to provide any additional comments, suggestions, or other input regarding working conditions or the environment in your department, college, or UC more generally, please do so in the space provided immediately below.



Demographics and Professional Employment1. Are you . . .

Non-tenure system

Pre-tenure, tenure system

Tenured

2. What is your age?

35 and Under

36 - 45

46 - 55

56 - 65

Over 65




3. Gender:

Male

Female

Transgender

4. Are you a . . .

U.S. Citizen

Permanent Resident

Foreign National

5. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

No, Not Hispanic or Latino

Yes, Hispanic or Latino: a person of Cuban, Mexican, Chicano, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race

6. What is your race?

White: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa

Black or African American: a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa

American Indian or Alaska Native: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the PhilippineIslands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, other Pacific Islands.

7. What is your current marital status?

Married

Divorced

Separated

Widowed

Never married

Member of an unmarried couple

8. Do you have children or other dependents?

Yes

No




----- Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056. www.MiamiOH.edu. 513.529.1686 -----Save and Exit



If you are satisfied with your responses, please click "Finalize the Questionnaire" button to submit your responses or click "Back" to modify your responses. Note: after the responses are finalized, you cannot make any changes to your responses or access this questionnaire.

9. What is your primary college?

College of Arts and Sciences

College of Engineering and Applied Science

College of Medicine




Appendix B

ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol

1. Please describe your primary responsibilities with regard to the ADVANCE project.

2. Please describe your vision of University of Cincinnati today and what you wish it to be in 10 years, related to issues of diversity and equity.

3. What priorities related to goals of the ADVANCE project do you believe are most

pressing for the upcoming year?

4. What issues or concerns regarding the climate of the University do you foresee as problematic related to the goals of the ADVANCE project?

5. How would you describe the ADVANCE current leadership and management structures

and processes and the extent to which they facilitate efficient work of individuals and groups?

6. In what ways do you foresee the ADVANCE project impacting the climate of the

University over the life of the project?


1

Appendix C

Faculty Retention Study

In Spring 2013, Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center analyzed human resource data on 722

tenured, tenured-track, and fix-term1 STEM faculty2 employed by the University of Cincinnati since

1990 the three UC LEAF participating colleges, i.e., the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S), the College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS) 3 , and the College of Medicine (COM). The

attrition4 of these faculty members was tracked between 1990 and 2013. Faculty members were categorized into three hiring cohorts: Cohort 1 – hired between 1990 and 1997; Cohort 2 – hired

between 1998 and 2005; and Cohort 3 – hired between 2006 and 2013.

Table 1 shows the disaggregated sample sizes by hiring cohort, by beginning rank, by gender, and by

retention status, while Table 2 shows the disaggregation of retention status by the college faculty were initially hired into, by rank at hiring, and by gender.

Table 1. Sample Size by Hiring Cohort, Beginning Rank, Gender, and Retention Status, UC LEAF Faculty Retention Study, 2013

Hiring Cohort Beginning Rank

Gender Retention Status

Total Left UC Retained

Cohort 1: Hired between 1990-

1997

Asst. Prof.

Missing 1 0 1

Female 23 9 32

Male 64 37 101

Total 88 46 134

Assoc.

Prof.

Female 8 4 12

Male 9 11 20

Total 17 15 32

Full Prof.

Female 1 1 2

Male 13 4 17

Total 14 5 19

Total

Missing 1 0 1

Female 32 14 46

Male 86 52 138

Total 119 66 185

1 Tenured and tenure-track faculty only included Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors. Instructors and Adjunct titles were not included. Fix-term faculty only included Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, and Research Professor. Other qualified titles, such as Clinical, Educator, Field Service, and Librarian, were not

included. 2 HR data also included 479 STEM faculty who were with the university in 1989. Among them, 142 faculty were still working at the university. However, the university database does not have consistent record of hiring data nor other HR information for these faculty. Therefore they were not included in this retention study. 3 College of Engineering (COE) became CEAS in 2011. Some faculty from the Department of Biomedical Engineering were included in CEAS if their initial college was categorized as COM/ENG, while some were included in COM if their initial college was categorized as COM. 4 Attrition includes both voluntary non-retirement and retirement/deceased.


2

Cohort 2: Hired between 1998-2005

Asst. Prof.

Female 26 20 46

Male 84 54 138

Total 110 74 184

Assoc.

Prof.

Female 3 7 10

Male 14 20 34

Total 17 27 44

Full Prof.

Female 2 3 5

Male 14 15 29

Total 16 18 34

Total

Female 31 30 61

Male 112 89 201

Total 143 119 262


Asst. Prof.

Female 13 42 55

Male 31 86 117

Total 44 128 172

Assoc.

Prof.

Female 6 12 18

Male 11 27 38

Total 17 39 56

Full Prof.

Female 2 2 4

Male 16 27 43

Total 18 29 47

Total

Female 21 56 77

Male 58 140 198

Total 79 196 275

Total

Asst. Prof.

Missing 1 0 1

Female 62 71 133

Male 179 177 356

Total 242 248 490

Assoc. Prof.

Female 17 23 40

Male 34 58 92

Total 51 81 132

Full Prof.

Female 5 6 11

Male 43 46 89

Total 48 52 100

Total

Missing 1 0 1

Female 84 100 184

Male 256 281 537

Total 341 381 722


3

Table 2. Sample Size by Hiring College, Beginning Rank, Gender, and Retention Status, UC LEAF Faculty Retention Study, 2013

Beginning College Beginning

Rank Gender

Retention Status Total

Left UC Retained

Arts and Sciences

Asst. Prof.

Female 11 40 51

Male 19 60 79

Total 30 100 130

Assoc.

Prof.

Female 4 4 8

Male 5 9 14

Total 9 13 22

Full Prof.

Female 0 3 3

Male 4 8 12

Total 4 11 15

Total

Female 15 47 62

Male 28 77 105

Total 43 124 167

Engineering and Applied Science

Asst. Prof.

Missing 1 0 1

Female 5 5 10

Male 60 42 102

Total 66 47 113

Assoc. Prof.

Female 1 5 6

Male 11 28 39

Total 12 33 45

Full Prof.

Female 1 0 1

Male 14 19 33

Total 15 19 34

Total

Missing 1 0 1

Female 7 10 17

Male 85 89 174

Total 93 99 192

Medicine

Asst. Prof.

Female 46 26 72

Male 100 73 173

Total 146 99 245

Assoc.

Prof.

Female 12 14 26

Male 18 21 39

Total 30 35 65

Full Prof.

Female 4 3 7

Male 25 19 44

Total 29 22 51

Total

Female 62 43 105

Male 143 113 256

Total 205 156 361


4

Total

Asst. Prof.

Missing 1 0 1

Female 62 71 133

Male 179 175 354

Total 242 246 488

Assoc. Prof.

Female 17 23 40

Male 34 58 92

Total 51 81 132

Full Prof.

Female 5 6 11

Male 43 46 89

Total 48 52 100

Total

Missing 1 0 1

Female 84 100 184

Male 256 279 535

Total 341 379 720

Non-parametric survival analysis was conducted for all faculty together, for each beginning rank, for

each hiring cohort, and for each college, and all were compared by gender. For each hiring cohort

and each college, more assistant professors were hired than associate or full professors5. In addition, for faculty hired in Cohort 3, the maximum possible length of employment at the university was

seven years; therefore, the estimation of retention rates were less accurate than for the other two cohorts.

As shown in Table 3, 54% of women and 52% of men faculty hired since 1990 were still working at the university in 2013. Figure 1 shows the nonparametric survival and hazard functions by gender for

all STEM faculty hired since 1990 by gender. The survival curves show the percentages of the original population that remained at a given year. The shaded areas of the survival curves show that the 95%

confidence intervals for men and women mostly overlapped, especially during the early years, which suggests that the survival rates for women faculty were similar to the survival rates for men faculty.

The median time to departure was 10 years for women and 9 years for men (Table 3). As shown in

Figure 1, the hazard functions showed the instantaneous attrition rates for each year for men and women. Attrition for both genders is low during the first 3 years of employment, increased from Year

4 to Year 6 (10%-12% of women and 9% - 11% of men were likely to leave UC during those years), decreased to lower risks in Year 7, and then returned to higher attrition rates in Year 8. Women’s

attrition peaked again at a later stage of their careers at Year 17 (14%), while this peak of attrition

was postponed until Year 22 for men (11%). Both the Log-Rank test for homogeneity and the Wilcoxon test showed that the gender difference was not statistically significant (p = .810 for the log-

Rank test and p = .320 for the Wilcoxon test), as shown in Table 3.

5 Assistant Professor included Assistant Professor and Research Assistant Professor, Associate Professor included Associate Professor and Research Associate Professor, and Full Professor included Full Professor and Research Full Professor.


5

Figure 1. Survival and hazard functions for all faculty by gender.

Table 3. Comparison of Time to Departure by Gender, Faculty Hired between 1990 and 2013, UC LEAF Faculty Retention Study, 2013

Gender

Total Number

of Faculty

Retention Status %

Retained

Median Survival Time (in Years) p for

Log-Rank

p for Wilcoxon

p for -2Log(LR) Left

UC Retained

(95% Confidence Interval)*

Female 184 84 100 54% 10 (8, 15) .810 .320 .986

Male 537 256 281 52% 9 (8, 13)

Total 721** 340 381 53%

Note. *95% Confidence Intervals were calculated based on LogLog transformation. ** One faculty did not record of gender.

Gender comparisons also were conducted for faculty retention data for each hiring cohort, each college, and each beginning rank, as shown in Figures 2-4 and Table 4. Even though specific patterns

of attrition were not exactly the same across hiring cohorts, colleges, and beginning ranks, no

statistically significant gender differences in faculty retention rates were found among these comparisons.


6

Figure 2. Survival functions for faculty hired in 3 cohorts by gender.


7

Figure 3. Survival functions for faculty in the 3 colleges by gender.


8

Figure 4. Survival functions for faculty at different ranks by gender. Table 4 shows comparisons of women’s and men’s time to departure within each hiring cohort, each

hiring college, and each beginning rank. None of the gender comparisons were statistically significant

at the .05 level. Potential differences in the survival times existed across colleges, with the College of Arts and Science having the longest median survival time for women faculty (17 years) and the

College of Medicine having the shortest (8 years). Analyses within each beginning rank, although not statistically significant, showed that female faculty at each rank had slightly shorter median survival

times than did their male peers. Higher percentages of women stayed at the university than did men in all comparisons, except for Cohort 1, hired between 1990-1997; (30% of women and 38% of men

were still at the university in 2013) and for the College of Medicine (41% of women and 44% of

men), and for those who were hired as associate professors (58% of women and 63% of men). Interpretation of some of these disaggregated results should be done with caution due to small

sample sizes.


9

Table 4. Comparison of Time to Departure by Gender for Each Hiring Cohort, Each College, and Each Rank, UC LEAF Faculty Retention Study, 2013

Gender

Total Number

of Faculty

Retention Status

% Retained

Median Survival Time

(in Years) p for Log-Rank

p for Wilcoxon

p for -2Log(LR)

Left UC

Retained (95%

Confidence Interval)*

By Hiring Cohort


Female 46 32 14 30% 11.5 (7, 17) .476 .678 .377

Male 138 86 52 38% 11 (8, 19)

Total 184 118 66 36%


Female 61 31 30 49% 9 (6, -) .337 .176 .393

Male 201 112 89 44% 9 (6, 14)

Total 262 143 119 45%


Female 77 21 56 73% 25th Percentile:

4 (3, 6)*** .880 .888 .886

Male 198 58 140 71% 25th Percentile:

4 (3, 5)***

Total 275 79 196 71%

By Beginning College

College of Arts and Sciences

Female 62 15 47 76% 17 (11, -) .534 .948 .501

Male 105 28 77 73% 25th Percentile:

8 (6, 19)***

Total 167 43 124 74%


Female 17 7 10 59% 12 (4, -) .981 .965 .857

Male 174 85 89 51% 9 (8, 20)

Total 191 92 99 52%

College of

Medicine

Female 105 62 43 41% 8 (6, 10) .621 .425 .441

Male 256 143 113 44% 7, (6, 9)

Total 361 205 156 43%

By Beginning Rank

Asst. Prof.

Female 133 62 71 53% 8 (7, 13) .746 .323 .937

Male 356 179 177 50% 9 (7, 11)

Total 489 241 248 51%

Assoc. Prof.

Female 40 17 23 58% 16 (5, -) .757 .555 .779

Male 92 34 58 63% 21 (8, -)

Total 132 51 81 61%

Full Prof.

Female 11 5 6 55% 9 (2, -) .820 .798 .782

Male 89 43 46 52% 10 (8, 19)

Total 100 48 52 52%

Note. *95% Confidence Intervals were calculated based on LogLog transformation.

** one faculty did not have a record of gender. *** Not enough faculty in this Cohort have left to estimate a median value.

Since the data used to create the models only tracked faculty hiring and attrition since 1990, faculty hiring and departures prior to 1990 did not inform the survival analysis. By only counting the faculty

hired in 1990 and going forward, the data set omitted the left censored data (i.e., avoided underestimating the length of employment for those faculty who were hired before 1990). As a result,


10

faculty who were hired prior to 1990 and still working at the university were not represented in this

data set. These are the faculty who have served at the university the longest. Therefore, the overall estimations of time to departure, as well the estimations at the college level and for each beginning

rank (especially for those hired as assistant professors and associate professors), were underestimated. The data set was right censored, which is typical for a survival analysis (i.e., the

eventual times to departure are unknown for faculty who were still employed at the university in

2013). As more data are added to this model over time, comparisons can be made between the retention of faculty hired prior to, during, and following the University’s targeted efforts to improve

faculty diversity. Currently, the model provides important and timely data that can inform areas for further investigation. Further analyses will provide a clearer picture of issues that may impact the

retention of STEM women at the University of Cincinnati.


UC LEAF External Evaluation Year 1 - University of Cincinnati€¦ · Cincinnati. University...

Documents

Transcript of UC LEAF External Evaluation Year 1 - University of Cincinnati€¦ · Cincinnati. University...