Provost’s Leadership Retreat

26 October 2004

www.case.edu/admin/aces
Retreat Objectives
• Gain knowledge about NSF ADVANCE and
ACES activities at Case
• Learn from the experiences of ACES Phase 1
test departments, and other leading NSF
ADVANCE institutions
• Create a collective understanding of the needs
for institutional transformation at Case
• Identify strategies for addressing issues related
to women faculty
• Gain new ideas through interaction with other
S&E deans and chairs
2
Retreat Agenda

• Welcome and Introductions

• ACES Year 1 – Overview, Experience of
Test Depts., Evaluation
• U of Michigan’s ADVANCE program
• Dean’s Panel of New Initiatives at Case
• SWOT exercise
• Georgia Tech’s ADVANCE program
• Next steps
3
What is the Problem?
Myth:
“…there are insufficient numbers of women and
minorities on the pathway from graduate student
to faculty member…the “pipeline” problem.”

Fact:
“The data indicate that this is true for minorities,
[in S & E] false for women.”

Source: Cathy A. Trower and Richard P. Chait, Faculty Diversity: Too little for too long

4
Academic Transformation is Possible

“The progress of
this institution …
will be directly
proportional to the
death rate of the
faculty.”

5
How Close Was Your Answer?

1911
William T. Foster (1879-1950)
President, Reed College

There were 46 students and 5 faculty

members at the time.

6
Areas of Concern at Case
• Low % of women faculty in S&E fields
• Low % of African-American & Hispanic-
American faculty in S&E fields
• Retention of senior women and minority
faculty in S&E fields
• Absence of women faculty in academic
leadership positions in S&E fields
• Women faculty across Case report lower
satisfaction with the academic climate
7
2003-04 Full-time S&E Faculty
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% Male
40% Female
30%
20%
10%
0%
Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

Source: Payroll/Institutional Research Data

8
Women Faculty Report That Case’s
Climate is Not Inclusive (2004 Survey):
Female faculty as compared to male faculty:
• Feel less supported and valued in their academic units, and feel
more pressure and restrictions
• Perceive that gender, race, and family obligations make a
difference in how faculty members are treated
• Rate their academic unit head’s leadership lower, and rate the
resources and supports they provide lower
• Perceive that compensation and non-research supports are less
equitably distributed
• Perceive lower transparency in allocating compensation, office
and lab space, teaching requirements, and clerical support
• Are less satisfied with their overall community and job
experience at Case.

9
It’s Not About Blame

10
Case’s NSF ADVANCE Award
• Academic Careers in Engineering
and Science (ACES)
• $3.5 Million Institutional
Transformation Award
• 2 Phases over 5 years
• Case is the first private institution to
receive award
11
ACES Organizational Chart
Edward M. Hundert John Anderson
Office of the President and the Provost
External Advisory Board

Lynn Singer, Deputy Provost Dean Myron Roomkin (WSOM)

Prinicpal Investigator Dean Ralph Horwitz (SOM)
Academic Careers in Dean Robert Savinell (CSE)
Engineering and Science (ACES) Dean Mark Turner (CAS)

Donald Feke P. Hunter Peckham Mary Barkley Diana Billimoria Dorothy Miller
Co-PI Co-PI Co-PI Co-PI Center for Women

Sue Dyke
Resource Equity Committee Project Coordinator
Beth McGee Patricia Higgins
Faculty Diversity Officer Eleanor Stoller
Cyrus Taylor
ACES Team
Senior Research Internal Advisory Board
Amanda Shaffer Associate, Susan Perry
Diversity Specialist

Case School of Engineering School of Medicine College of Arts and Sciences Weatherhead
School of Management

12
NSF Fundable Departments
College of Arts & Sciences Case School School of Medicine Weatherhead School
of Engineering of Management

Anthropology Biomedical Eng Anatomy Economics

Astronomy Chemical Eng Biochemistry Information
Systems
Biology Civil Eng Center for RNA
Molecular Marketing &
Chemistry* Electrical Eng & Biology Policy Studies
Computer
Geological Science Genetics Operations
Sciences
Research
Macromolecular Molecular
Mathematics Science & Eng Biology & Organizational
Microbiology Behavior *
Physics Materials Science
& Eng Neurosciences
Political
Science Mechanical & Pharmacology
Aerospace Eng*
Psychology Physiology &
Biophysics*
Sociology

Statistics

* denotes Phase I Test Department

13
ACES Goals and Objectives

• Increase number of women at all

academic levels
• Stimulate department change
• Transform campus-wide culture
• Institutionalize transformation

14
ACES Iniatives:
Senior Leadership
• Deans accountable to Provost for
institutional progress
• Executive coaching for deans

• 5 endowed chairs for senior women

scientists and engineers
(President Hundert’s fundraising commitment)

15
ACES Iniatives:
School and Department Level
• Chairs coaching (3 chairs of test depts.)
• Women faculty coaching & mentoring
(14 women faculty in test depts.)
• Networking events for deans, chairs,
& women faculty
• Educational support & faculty
development for departments (in 2
test departments)

16
ACES Initiatives:
All S & E Departments
• Distinguished lectureships (11 awards)
• Opportunity grants (15 awards)
• Faculty search committee support
(4 departments/search committees)
• Minority summer undergraduate research
program (hosted 7 minority scholars and one faculty
member)
• Student awareness training (in 2 test departments)

17
University Wide Iniatives
• Search committee toolkit (online at
www.case.edu/admin/aces)

• Partner hiring policy

• Center for Women events (online at
http://www.case.edu/provost/centerforwomen/)

18
ACES Phase I - Four Test Depts.

• Chemistry (Arts and Sciences)

• Mechanical & Aerospace
Engineering (Engineering)
• Organizational Behavior
(Management)
• Physiology & Biophysics
(Medicine)
19
ACES Phase II - Extension of Best
Practices to 10 Departments
• College of Arts and Sciences
– Anthropology
– Geological Sciences
– Mathematics
– Political Science
• School of Engineering
– Biomedical Engineering
– Chemical Engineering
– Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
• School of Medicine
– Biochemistry
– Molecular Biology and Microbiology
• School of Management
– Marketing and Policy Studies

20
Overview of ACES Initiatives:
Case’s Recruitment and Retention Strategies
Recruitment Retention
Leadership
Development
Search Committee
Toolkit Coaching
Partner Hiring
Policy Networking
Active Recruiting Opportunity Grants
Critical Mass
Distinguished Student Training
Lectureships
Climate Mentoring
New Hiring Transparent
Guidelines Policies
21
University Mechanisms for Support:
Office of the President and the Provost
• Provost & Deputy Provost review of
annual and mid-tenure evaluations of
non-tenured faculty
• Provost’s Opportunity Fund for hiring
women & faculty of color
• A one-year extension of pre-tenure
period after each live birth or adoption
• Child care center for faculty
22
Q & A?

23
Appendix of
Supplementary Information
 

Faculty Composition in S&E

Departments at Case (2003-04)
S&E Depts. Full-Time Part-Time/ Total
Adjunct
Female 111 (22%) 27 (33%) 138 (23%)

Male 400 (78%) 56 (67%) 456 (77%)

 
Total 511 83 594

University Full-Time Part-Time/ Total

Adjunct
Female 727 (31%) 508 (33%) 1235 (32%)

Male 1616 (69%) 1029 (67%) 2645 (68%)

Total 2343 1537 3880

Source: Institutional Research – Human Resources

25
Women in S&E – Tenure Status at Case
(2003-04)
S&E Tenure- Tenured In Tenure Total Non-Tenure
track Status Track (Tenured + Track
In Tenure
Track)
Female 37 37 74 (18%) 15 (42%)

Male 246 86 332 (82%) 21 (58%)

   
Total 406 36

Source: Institutional Research – Human Resources

Count is based on faculty paid through CASE only

26
P&T Awards in S&E Depts. at Case
(2003-04)
Tenure Awards S&E Departments University
Female 1 (7%) 5 (19%)
Male 13 (93%) 21 (81%)
Total 14 26
Source: Office of the Provost

Promoted to S&E Departments University

Professor
Female 2 (22%) 10 (30%)

Male 7 (78%) 23 (70%)

Total 9 33

Source: Institutional Research – Human Resources

27
Academic Leadership in S&E Depts. at
Case (2003-04)
S&E Leadership Endowed Dept. P&T Administrative
Chair Committee Position

Female 8 (14%) 17 (22%) 9 (15%)

Male 49 (86%) 59 (78%) 51 (85%)

Total 57 76 60

28
Growth in Number of Women Faculty
at Case (1999-2004)
Number of Women Faculty

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

29 Academic Year
Growth in Percentage of Women
Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
Percentage of Women Faculty

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

30
Growth in Number of Minority
Faculty at Case (1999-2004)
Number of
M inority Faculty
120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
Academ ic Year

African American Asian American Hispanic American Native American

31
Growth in Number of Professors at
Case 1999- 2004
Female

Professors, Excluding Medical School

240

210

180

150

120

90

60

30

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

32
Growth in Number of Associate
Professors at Case 1999-2004
Associate Professors, Excluding Medical School
110
100

80

60

40

20

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

33
Growth in Tenured Faculty at Case
1999-2004
Tenured Faculty, Excluding Medical School
320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

34
Growth in School of Medicine
Professors (1999-2004)
Professors, Medical School
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

35
Growth in School of Medicine
Associate Professors (1999-2004)
Associate Professors, Medical School
250

200

150

100

50

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

36
Growth in School of Medicine Tenured
Faculty (1999-2004)
Tenured Faculty, Medical School
320

280

240

200

160

120

80

40

0
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

Academic Year

37
Percent of Ph.D.s Earned by Women by
Field (National)

APS News, The Back Page, January 2000

38
National Percentages of Female Graduate
Students and Faculty in S&E: 1987 & 1997
female graduate students
female faculty

100
90
Expected levels given 1987 pool * Source: NSF
80 Report on
70 Women,
60 Minorities, and
Persons With
Percent

50
Disabilities in
40 Science and
30 Engineering, 2000
20
10
0

19 87 97 19 87 997
es 19 g 1
i e nc
nc es e e r in e r ing
Sc Sci
e
n gin
ng ine
E E
39
National Percentages of Female Faculty

National Percentages of
Female Faculty in the Social Sciences,
Sciences, and Engineering: 1987-1997*

50
1987
40
Percent

1997 * Source: NSF

30
Report on
20
Women,
10 Minorities, and
0 Persons With
Disabilities in
Sciences

Engineering
Sciences
Social

Science and
Engineering,
2000

40
The Leaky Pipeline
70

60

50
Percent

40

30

20 S&E Bachelors
S&E Masters
10
S&E Doctorates
0
1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994
Year
Assume 7 years post-BA/BS to earn a Ph.D.: e.g., in 1988 women were 40% of S&E Bachelors; in
1995 they were 30% of Doctorates.
National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Studies, Survey of Graduate Students and
Post doctorates in Science and Engineering.
41
Some Aspects of the Problem
• Men and women rating …CV’s give lower ratings
when they believe work is a woman’s
• Student ratings – tougher on women
• MIT Resources Study found that:
• “Marginalization increases as women progress,
accompanied by differences in salary, space,
awards”
• Problems especially flourish in departments with
non-democratic practices … cronyism and unequal
access to resources
Source: Association of American Medical Colleges

42
Perception vs Reality
Since many of the Over time, small
problems encountered disadvantages
by female faculty are accumulate into
minor, this emphasis significant ones that
on remedies to improve have large impacts
the climate is an over- on career success
reaction. and satisfaction.

43
Gender Bias in Funding
Postdoctoral Fellowships
“…the success rate of
Average rating of applicants
as a function of their female scientists
scientific productivity applying for
3.00 postdoctoral
Competence Score

Men n=62
fellowships at the
2.75
Women n=52 MRC during the
2.50
1990’s has been less
than half that of male
2.25 applicants.”
2.00 C. Wennerås & A. Wold
0-19 20-39 40-59 60-99 >99 Nepotism and sexism in
Total impact* peer-review. Nature
387:341-343, 1997
* One impact point =
one paper in a journal with
an impact factor of one.

44
Evaluation and Gender Bias
Women applying for a postdoctoral fellowship
had to be 2.5 times more productive to receive
the same competence score as the average male
applicant
(Wenneras & Wold, (1997) Nature, 387, 341)

University psychology professors prefer 2:1 to

hire “Brian” over “Karen”, even when the
application packages are identical
(Steinpreis, Anders & Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles, 41, 509)

45
Study of Three U.S. Federal Agencies
Using Peer Review
Rating of proposals
• Better for men than women at all 3 agencies
• Strongly related to perceived track record
and being known to reviewer  

Funding of proposals
• Gender predicted scientific rating, and in
turn rating predicted funding

Findings from survey of 1400 reviewers of proposals to NIH, NSF, NEH in 1994

46
Letters of Recommendation Differ for
Men and Women
25%

20% Comparison of letters for

male and female
15% applicants all of whom
got jobs at this
women 10% institution (Wayne State
men University).
5%

0%
% %
w/Doubt w/Minimal
Raiser Assurance
Trix, F. and Psenka, C (2003) “Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation
for female and male medical faculty,” Discourse & Society, Vol 14(2):191-220, 2003
47
Letters of Recommendation Differ for
Men and Women (cont’d)
Women
25
Men
20
Distinctive
Number of mentions

15 content
following
10
possessives
5 (his/her)

0
Pu
Pe

Co
CV

Pa
life

bli
rso

lle
tie
ca

a
n

nts

gu
al

tio

es
ns

Trix, F. and Psenka, C (2003) “Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation
for female and male medical faculty,” Discourse & Society, Vol 14(2):191-220, 2003
48
Examples of factors that contributed to determining
salaries: 14 helped men more, 2 helped women more
Factor Men Women
BA adds $28,000 adds $9,000

“fast track” designation adds $10,900 adds $200

experience living abroad adds $9,200 subtracts $7,700

choosing international work adds $5,300 subtracts $4,200

speaking another language adds $2,600 subtracts $5,100

negotiating for salary subtracts $5,600 adds $3,500

frequent travel adds $ 3,200 adds $6,300

Egan, M. L. & Bendick, M., Jr. (1994). International business careers in the United States:
Salaries, advancement and male-female differences. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 5, 35-50.
49
What are Gender Schemas
• Gender schemas are non-conscious hypotheses about
sex differences that guide everyone’s perceptions and
behaviors
• Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define
“average” members of a group
Men are instrumental, task-oriented, competent
Women are nurturing, emotional, and care about
relationships

• Both men and women have the same schemas

Source: Virgina Valian, 1998, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, MIT Press
50
Lowered success rate

Accumulation of disadvantage

Performance is underestimated

Evaluation
Gender bias Lack of
schemas critical mass
51
How It Happens
Why So Slow: The Advancement of Women by Virginia
Valian, Distinguished Professor of Psychology and PI
of the Gender Equity Project, Hunter College (CUNY)
• Chosen by the NSF as recommended reading
• Read by ACES participants (chairs, deans, coaches,
etc.)
• Discusses: gender schema definition, mountains out of
molehills, how bias operates

52
Molehills become Mountains
Any one slight may
seem minor but
small imbalances and
disadvantages accrue
and accumulate into “Mountains are
a mountain of molehills piled one
disadvantage. on top of the other”

Valian, 1998, Why So Slow? The

Advancement of Women, MIT Press

53
Perception vs Reality
Discrimination is Research shows
only practiced by that everyone -
a small set of whether male or
ignorant people. female - perceives
and treats women
differently from
men.

54
How We Can Be Unaware of Our Own
Biases
We view ourselves as fair and impartial
We believe advancement is merit-based
We admire the competence of some women, which
seems to show that we are free of gender bias
Some women, though the exception, make it to the top,
appearing to demonstrate that evaluations are basically
fair and that truly able women succeed
It is hard to remember that an exception is just that: an
atypical event, and therefore actually evidence that the
norm is different
Source: Virgimia Valian, 1998, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, MIT Press
55