Benchmarks How? Which? Who?

Why?

Gender Equity ProjectVirginia Valian & Vita Rabinowitz

Hunter College

10 May 2004

Mandate: Institutionalization

Institutionalize collection of benchmarks at schools with NSF ADVANCE IT awards

ADVANCE teams may determine how it is to be done

ADVANCE teams may work with the institutional office that will take on the work

but ADVANCE must pass on the baton

Goal: Institutionalization

Institutionalize collection of benchmarks at all schools nation-wide

Requirements

• how-to manual, with solutions to problems of collecting, analyzing, and reporting benchmark data

• motivation

How to institutionalize

Problem: antiquated, inadequate, and decentralized data bases

• e.g., at Hunter, computerized data base only extends back to 1989; earlier material must be entered by hand

• e.g., at some institutions, different colleges or schools have their own data; difficult to integrate cross-school

How to institutionalize

Problem: no clear locus for collection and distribution of data

• IR? not all schools have an office for institutional research

• HR? not all human resource offices are accustomed to providing finished tables (as opposed to giving data to another office)

• diversity compliance? such offices vary widely in the scope of data they collect and report

How to institutionalize

Problem: data originate in different locations• some data are in HR: salary, date of hire,

date of reappointment, date of severance• some data (e.g., space allocation) are

scattered over several offices• some data (e.g., offer letters) are in chairs'

files, others in deans' files, others in provosts' files, others in no one's files (because not in writing)

How to institutionalize

Problem: some data are incommensurate across institutions

• distinguished chairs (e.g., at some institutions, named chairs are less prestigious than university chairs)

• department chairs (e.g., at schools with few resources, department chairs have few opportunities for leadership; are managers rather than leaders)

• chairs vs heads

How to institutionalize

Problem: hard to simultaneously present data fully and transparently

• need to work out data presentation

• faculty flux charts (initially conceptualized at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory; graphically developed by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

Total natural and social science faculty, 1998-2003

170 172

Spring 1998 Spring 2003

8 Promoted

12 Promoted

3 Resigned

1 Resigned

10 Resigned

4 Retired

2 Administrative

18 Retired Full

Associate

Assistant

*Thanks to WHOI for development of this flux chart.

5

1

34 New Hires

Faculty Flux* at Hunter College

Male natural and social science faculty, 1998-2003

113 113

Faculty Flux* at Hunter College

5 Promoted

8 Promoted

2 Resigned

1 Resigned

3 Resigned

4 Retired

1 Administrative

13 Retired Full

Associate

Assistant

*Thanks to WHOI for development of this flux chart.

3

1

20 New Hires

Spring 1998 Spring 2003

Faculty Flux* at Hunter College

5759

Full

Associate

Assistant7 Resigned

1 Resigned

1 Administrative

5 Retired

3 Promoted

4 Promoted

Female natural and social science faculty, 1998-2003

2

14 New Hires

*Thanks to WHOI for development of this flux chart.

Spring 1998 Spring 2003

Which

Question: could a school do well on most of the benchmarks but not have equal professional development and satisfaction of ♀ and ♂ ?

Which – Hunter College

Spring 2003

♀ salaries equivalent to ♂♀ ~ 29% of nat sci Full Prof

♀ ~ 32% of soc sci Full Prof

♀ = 75% of Dist Profs (n=4)

♀ represented on decision-making committees at or above representation on faculty

Which – Hunter College

But:

♀ spend more time in rank in soc sci

♀ leave at Asst Prof more often than ♂(national trend)

♀ may be less productive than ♂♀ may have less informal power and

influence than ♂

Which

• add recruitment!– Fall 2003

• social science: 5/9• natural science: 4/8

Whichadd smaller-scale studies

• % ♀ colloquium speakers

• % ♀ and ♂ hired as function of prestige of PhD-granting institution (Nelson; Kuch)

• % ♀ and ♂ nominated for professional prizes, awards, and fellow status

• institutional rewards to faculty who work for gender equity and diversity

correlate smaller-scale study data with NSF-12

Why?workforce infrastructure

• demographics of population is changing much more rapidly than demographics of science

• if scientists are going to be evenly distributed across demographic categories, need to monitor progress toward that end

Why?external funding and influence

• demonstrate to funders that good record-keeping procedures are already in place

• increase competitiveness for grants targeting women and minorities

• demonstrate to state and national legislators that support is necessary to continue serving needs of constituents

Why?

window on institutional effectiveness

• discover gaps and inefficiencies in non-gender record-keeping, leading to better-functioning offices

Why?

continuous thread

• students need additional ways of judging which schools will do well by them: equity benchmark reporting is one way

• faculty need additional ways of learning where they are likely to flourish: equity benchmark reporting is one way