Women in Science Program

ADVANCEment Towards Institutional Transformation at Towson University
(ADVANCE IT)

Executive Summary:

The main goal of the Towson University (TU) NSF ADVANCE IT-START proposal was to gather historical and baseline qualitative and quantitative data in order to elucidate major issues related to recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in STEM fields at Towson University. The specific objectives included:

1. the determination of the climate for Women faculty in the Fischer College of Science and Mathematics;
2. the review of current university policies and procedures related to the recruitment, retention and advancement of women faculty in STEM fields; and,
3. the development of a plan for institutional transformation based on the data collected.

The expectation is that data collected will serve to inform policies and practices affecting the recruitment, selection, retention, scholarship, tenure, promotion and advancement to university leadership positions of female and minority faculty at TU.

Enhancing the Academic Pipeline: The ADVANCEment Towards Institutional Transformation at Towson University Summary Report is available.

Full Report

1. Purpose statement from Abstract of proposal
   
   The main goal of the Towson University (TU) NSF ADVANCE IT-START proposal was to gather historical and baseline qualitative and quantitative data in order to elucidate major issues related to recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in STEM fields at Towson University. The specific objectives included:
   1. the determination of the climate for Women faculty in the Fischer College of Science and Mathematics;
   2. the review of current university policies and procedures related to the recruitment, retention and advancement of women faculty in STEM fields; and,
   3. the development of a plan for institutional transformation based on the data collected.
   The expectation is that data collected will serve to inform policies and practices affecting the recruitment, selection, retention, scholarship, tenure, promotion and advancement to university leadership positions of female and minority faculty at TU.
   
   Data collection will include indicators such as salaries, faculty recruitment and retention, faculty applicant pools, tenure and promotion outcomes; identification of policies and resources for recruitment, review of institutional policies regarding promotion, tenure, and work and life issues, and a climate survey to determine the institution's current environment.


2. Study Methods
   
   The study employed a mixed-methods approach by collecting both qualitative and quantitative data in order to elucidate major issues related to recruitment, retention, and advancement of women in STEM fields at TU. These will be considered from three key vantage points including:
   1. Institutional Issues;
   2. Career Issues; and
   3. Family Issues.
   
   Data will be collected from multiple sources allowing for both macro and micro levels of analysis. Institutional policies and data as well as Campus Climate Indices will be used to provide broad based understandings of the institutional context which frames the experiences of women faculty in STEM disciplines. Four sets of quantitative data will be collected in order to isolate unique experiences of women faculty in STEM disciplines. These include:
   1. current faculty in FISHER COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS relative to a comparative cohort of faculty from the College of Liberal Arts;
   2. Women applicants for faculty searches who did not accept an offer relative to a comparative cohort of male applicants;
   3. Women faculty who left Towson University relative to comparative cohort of male faculty;
   4. Women faculty who were not tenured relative to comparative cohort of male faculty.
      
   In addition, four sets of qualitative data will be conducted including interviews with current, potential, and former women (who left, and who were not tenured) faculty in FISHER COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS.
   
   A two-tiered quantitative / qualitative approach will be used to collect data in order to more fully understand the experiences of potential and former faculty in STEM fields. The groups of faculty considered include:
   1. applicants for faculty searches who did not accept an offer;
   2. faculty who left Towson University for reasons other than retirement; and
   3. faculty who were not tenured.
      
   To be included in this portion of the study, potential and former Towson University faculty members must have left or interviewed for a faculty position within a STEM discipline within the past 10 years.
   
   First, quantitative data will be collected for male and female faculty in all three groups. Data analysis will allow for comparison across sex in order to isolate unique issues or experiences of women faculty in STEM fields.
   
   Second, potential and former women faculty in STEM fields will be interviewed. Areas of inquiry will focus on reasons for not accepting an offer or staying at Towson University and will explore institutional, career, and family issues. Interviews will be audio-taped and transcribed for off-line analysis. Grounded theory analysis will be used to isolate thematic content. Interviews will be conducted by faculty with an expertise in qualitative research and by trained graduate assistants in social science fields.


3. Quantitative Data concerning Faculty Characteristics from CLA and FCSM
   
   The following tables show data collected from both the initial on-line and then follow-up survey to current faculty in CLA and FCSM, those faculty that have left the university in the past five years from each college and those that have turned down an offer for a faculty position in the last five years from each college. Only those questions on the survey that showed a statistical significance are indicated.
   
   

   Hiring Process

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 43) Mean	CLA (N = 60) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N =52) Mean	Male (N =45) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   I was naïve about the negotiation process.	3.02	2.45	7.614	.007*	2.80	2.53	2.335	.130	.297	.587

   • Those in FCSM reported being more naïve about the negotiation process than those in CLA. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 3) Mean	CLA (N = 9) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 9) Mean	Male (N = 3) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   The department did it’s best to obtain resources for me.	2.67	3.44	5.689	.044*	3.22	3.33	.089	.773	3.200	.111
   I negotiated successfully for what I needed.	2.67	2.33	1.454	.262	2.67	1.67	7.234	.028*	.009	.928

   • Those in CLA were more likely to feel their department did it’s best to obtain resources for them. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Women were more likely to feel they had negotiated successfully for what they needed. There was no significant difference across colleges.
   
   Faculty who Declined Offers

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 7) Mean	CLA (N = 6) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 7) Mean	Male (N = 5) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   My interactions with the search committee were positive	4.00	3.17	5.882	.042*	3.71	3.40	.235	.641	.235	.641
   I was pleased with my start up package.	2.86	0.67	12.788	.007**	1.57	1.80	1.003	.346	.020	.890

   • Those in FCSM were more likely to feel their interactions with the search committee were positive. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in FCSM reported more satisfaction with the offered start up package. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   Tenure Experience

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 37) Mean	CLA (N = 56) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 52)  Mean	Male (N = 39) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   I received reduced responsibilities so that I could build my research program.	2.27	1.59	7.847	.006**	1.83	1.92	.000	.984	.513	.476
   I was told about assistance available to pre-tenured faculty.	2.46	1.89	5.121	.026*	2.02	2.26	.603	.440	2.863	.094
   My senior advisor committee was very helpful to me in working toward tenure.	2.72	1.75	10.024	.002**	2.02	2.23	.057	.811	1.734	.191

   • Those in FCSM report having reduced responsibilities, being told about assistance, and receiving assistance from their senior advisor committee more so than those in CLA. There were no significant differences across gender.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Y%	CLA Y%	Chi-Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male	Chi Square	P Value	Chi Square	P Value
   Did (or will) you experience the tenure process?	82.2	94.9	4.349	.037*	92.9	84.8	1.711	.191	5.010	.171
   Do you currently have tenure or an indefinite appointment?	47.2	69.6	4.625	.032*	54.9	66.7	1.275	.259	6.544	.088
   Are you aware of the option to extend your tenure clock?	61.8	40.0	3.986	.046*	54.0	43.2	.984	.321	5.566	.135

   • Those in CLA were more likely to be tenure track and already have received tenure. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • There was more awareness of the option to extend the tenure clock in FCSM. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   Previous Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 3) Mean	CLA (N = 9) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 9) Mean	Male (N = 3) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   I understood the criteria for achieving tenure.	2.00	3.33	8.031	.022*	2.89	3.33	4.518	.066	2.541	.150

   • Those in CLA were more likely to report knowing the criteria for achieving tenure. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Y%	CLA Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Would you have wanted to extend the tenure clock if you had been aware of the option?	66.7	0.0	4.44	.035*	33.3	0.0	.889	.346	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	8.000	.046*
   Did you choose not to extend the tenure clock despite wanting to?	100.0	0.0	10.00	.002**	25.0	50.0	.476	.490	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	10.00	.019*

   • Those is FCSM report a higher desire to have extended the tenure clock if they had known about the option prior to leaving Towson. The significant interaction indicates the gender trend is not consistent across colleges. In CLA, there were no men and women indicating wanting to extend the tenure clock if they had been aware where as a higher desire was present for women in FCSM.
   • There was a significant interaction for those choosing not to extend the tenure clock despite wanting to indicating gender trends vary across colleges. In CLA, there were no men or women reporting choosing not to extend where as more women in FCSM reported not extending despite wanting to.
   
   

   Resources

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 43) Mean	CLA (N =56) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N =53) Mean	Male (N = 42) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   I have the equipment and supplies I need to adequately conduct my research.	2.79	2.21	5.774	.018*	2.31	2.68	1.617	.207	.123	.727
   I receive regular maintenance/upgrade for my equipment.	2.16	1.55	6.544	.012*	1.81	1.84	.115	.735	1.244	.268
   I have sufficient office space	3.28	2.35	21.516	.000**	2.78	2.68	1.512	.222	.877	.351
   I have sufficient lab space.	2.17	.54	29.868	.000**	0.89	1.71	4.024	.048*	3.528	.064
   I have sufficient space for housing research animals.	0.51	.09	9.144	.003**	0.19	032	.109	.741	.500	.481
   I have colleagues or peers who give me career advice or guidance when I need.	3.05	2.42	8.210	.005**	2.80	2.59	1.525	.220	2.486	.118
   I have sufficient teaching support (including TAs).	2.26	1.54	11.857	.001**	1.83	1.89	.216	.643	.249	.619

   • Those in FCSM have higher reports of having supplies needed for research as well as receiving regular upgrades for their equipment. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in FCSM were more satisfied with their office space and space for housing animals. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in FCSM were more satisfied with their lab space. Men across both colleges were also more satisfied with their lab space.
   • Those in FCSM reported higher levels of support from colleagues or peers when needed. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in FCSM report more satisfaction with teaching support. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Mean	CLA Mean	Chi Square	P Value	Female Mean	Male Mean	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA  Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	Chi Square	P Value
   I would like to receive more department travel funds.	2.47	3.04	7.076	.009**	2.63	2.98	5.025	.027*	2.96	1.84	3.00	3.06	6.168	.015*

   • Those in CLA indicated a stronger need for more department travel funds. Men across both colleges also indicated a stronger need for more department travel funds. The significant interaction, however, indicates the trend for gender is not the same across colleges.
   
   Previous Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 3) Mean	CLA (N = 9) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 9) Mean	Male (N = 3) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   I would like to have received more department travel funds.	2.00	3.67	8.357	.020*	3.11	3.67	3.295	.107	1.017	.343

   • Those in CLA report more need for additional travel funds. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Mean	CLA Mean	Chi Square	P Value	Female Mean	Male Mean	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA  Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	Chi Square	P Value
   I had sufficient teaching support (including TAs).	2.33	1.33	2.854	.130	1.67	1.33	6.173	.038*	1.00	3.00	1.50	1.29	9.491	.015*

   • Women were more likely to feel they had sufficient teaching support. However, the significant interaction indicates this trend is only for one college. The women in FCSM reported greater satisfaction with teaching support where as it was the men in CLA to report greater satisfaction with teaching support.
   
   

   Collaborations

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 42) Y%	CLA (N = 56) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female (N = 53) Y%	Male (N = 43) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Do you currently collaborate with colleagues in your department?	65.9	28.6	13.33	.000*	36.5	53.5	2.742	.098	75.0	52.9	26.3	28.6	15.69	.001**
   Do you currently collaborate with colleagues outside of TU?	85.7	64.9	5.403	.020*	75.5	72.7	.095	.758	91.7	47.1	50.0	74.3	10.07	.018*
   Did you previously collaborate with colleagues in your department?	61.9	41.1	4.167	.041*	46.3	54.8	.677	.411	73.9	77.8	31.6	45.7	8.150	.043*
   Did you previously collaborate with colleagues outside of TU?	88.1	75.1	2.498	.114	83.3	79.1	.288	.592	95.7	47.4	60.0	85.7	9.658	.002**

   • Those in FCSM currently collaborate more with those in their department and individuals off campus than those in CLA. The significant interactions for these variables indicate that gender trends are not consistent across colleges. There are more men collaborating with colleagues in their department on and off campus in FCSM where as the women in CLA are collaborating more in their department and off campus.
   • Those in FCSM previously collaborated more with those in their department than individuals in CLA. The significant interaction indicates that the gender trend is not consistent across colleges.
   • Although there is not a significant difference for either gender or college in regard to previously collaborating with colleges outside of Towson, the significant interaction indicates the gender trends are different for the two colleges. In the past, men in FCSM have collaborated more outside of Towson where as it was the women in CLA who collaborated more off campus.
   
   

   Committees

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 43) Y%	CLA  (N = 55)  Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female (N = 55) Y%	Male (N = 42)  Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Chi Square	P Value
   Served on diversity committee?	32.6	28.6	.357	.837	20.0	40.5	6.471	.039*	7.338	.291
   Chaired faculty research committee?	27.3	23.6	.172	.918	16.7	34.1	7.229	.027*	8.514	.203

   • Men were more likely to serve on the diversity committee. There was no significant difference across colleges.
   • Men were more likely to chair the faculty research committee. There was no significant difference across colleges.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 43) Y%	CLA (N = 55) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female (N = 55) Y%	Male (N = 42) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Chaired salary committee?	30.2	24.5	1.920	.383	20.4	36.6	6.343	.042*	43.5	15.0	11.1	23.5	13.67	.034*

   • Men were more likely to chair the salary committee. However, the significant interaction suggests this is only true for one college. There more men who were salary committee chairs in FCSM where as there were more women who were salary committee chairs in CLA.
   
   

   Leadership Positions

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 43) Y%	CLA (N = 52) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female (N = 53) Y%	Male  (N = 40) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Chi Square	P Value
   Currently PI on research grant?	34.1	15.4	4.578	.032*	24.1	25.0	.011	.918	4.317	.229
   Previous PI on research grant?	40.5	21.6	3.913	.048*	26.9	33.3	.439	.508	5.653	.130
   Member of a national commission or panel?	26.2	10.9	3.847	.050*	11.5	23.3	2.307	.129	7.609	.055

   • Those in FCSM were more likely to be the PI on research grants. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in FCSM were also more like to have been the PI on research grants in the past. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in FCSM were more likely to be a member of a national commission or panel. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Men were more likely to be the editor or a journal. The significant interaction indicates this trend is only for one college.
   • Those in FCSM were more likely to be the PI on educational grants. The significant interaction indicates that gender trends are different between colleges despite no significant difference between gender. There were more women who had educational grants in FCSM where as there were more men with educational grants in CLA.
   
   

   Health

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 43) Y%	CLA (N = 52) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female (N = 53) Y%	Male (N = 40) Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Editor of a journal?	16.3	17.9	.043	.837	7.5	29.5	8.049	.005**	25.0	5.3	35.0	8.8	8.911	.031*
   Currently PI on educational grant?	22.7	5.9	5.674	.017*	15.1	12.5	.128	.721	12.5	35.0	12.5	3.0	10.71	.013*

   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 40) Mean	CLA (N = 54) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 54) Mean	Male  (N = 39) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   How often do you feel depressed?	0.75	1.26	4.342	.040*	1.13	0.95	.019	.890	2.842	.095
   How accommodating is your department in dealing with your disability?	2.50	2.93	46.892	.000**	2.29	3.33	1.316	.272	4.263	.059

   • Those in CLA reported feeling depressed more often. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in CLA also felt their department to be more accommodating to their disability than those in FCSM. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Y%	CLA Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Do you have a significant health issue or disability?	4.8	25.0	7.196	.007**	12.7	22.0	1.439	.230	8.7	0.0	38.9	19.4	11.45	.010**

   • CLA had more faculty report having a disability. The significant interaction indicates this trend varies across colleges.
   
   

   Interactions with Colleagues & Decision Making

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 41) Mean	CLA   (N = 55) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 52) Mean	Male  (N = 40) Mean	F Score	P Value	FCSM Male  Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA  Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	F Score	P Value
   I am treated with respect by colleagues.	3.61	3.49	.060	.807	3.44	3.70	2.760	.100	3.58	3.65	3.85	3.31	4.553	.035*
   I am treated with respect by my department chair.	3.68	.354	.403	.528	3.58	3.64	.000	1.00	3.50	3.90	3.80	3.40	6.447	.013*
   I have a voice in how resources are allocated.	2.72	2.63	.083	.774	2.69	2.64	.211	.647	2.48	3.00	2.84	2.51	4.044	.047*
   My department chair involves me in decision making.	3.07	3.13	.602	.440	3.04	3.21	.715	.400	2.96	3.21	3.53	2.94	4.622	.034*

   • Although there are no significant differences for college or gender, the significant interaction indicates that gender trends vary by college. Men in CLA reported higher respect from colleagues than women in CLA where as women in FCSM reported more respect from colleagues than their men in the college.
   • Although there are no significant differences for college or gender, the significant interaction indicates that gender trends vary by college. Men in CLA reported higher levels of respect from the department chair where as women in FCSM reported more respect from their department chair.
   • Although there are no significant differences for college or gender, the significant interaction indicates that gender trends vary by college. Men in CLA reported having more voice in how resources are allocated where as women in FCSM had higher reports of having a voice in how resources are allocated.
   • Although there are no significant differences for college or gender, the significant interaction indicates that gender trends vary by college. Men in CLA reported higher levels involvement in the decision making process where as women in FCSM were more likely to report feeling involved in the decision making process.
   
   Previous Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 3) Mean	CLA   (N = 9) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 9) Mean	Male  (N = 3) Mean	F Score	P Value	FCSM Male  Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA  Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	F Score	P Value
   I encountered unwritten rules concerning how one was expected to interact with colleagues.	2.00	2.11	1.017	.343	2.22	1.67	.005	.948	3.00	1.50	1.00	2.43	7.598	.025*

   • Although there are not significant differences for college or gender in regards to unwritten rules, the significant interaction indicates a different trend for each college. Men who had worked in FCSM were more likely to feel they had encountered unwritten rules where as women from CLA were more likely to feel they had encountered unwritten rules.
   
   

   Job Satisfaction

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 44) Mean	CLA (N = 58) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 56) Mean	Male (N = 44) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   How satisfied are you with the way your career has progressed at Towson?	3.36	3.03	4.040	.047*	3.20	3.18	.268	.606	.233	.630

   • Those in CLA report less satisfaction with their career progression at Towson. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Y%	CLA Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Have you ever considered leaving Towson?	50	79.3	9.672	.002**	64.3	68.2	.167	.683	54.2	45.0	85.0	75.0	9.945	.019*

   • Those in CLA were more likely to have considered leaving Towson. The significant interaction indicates the gender trends are consistent across college.
   
   

   Available Programs

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 38) Mean	CLA (N = 50) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 49) Mean	Male (N = 37) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   Value of Women in Science?	2.77	1.45	11.371	.001**	2.10	1.95	1.159	.285	.262	.610

   • Those in FCSM placed more value on the Women in Science Program. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Y%	CLA Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Heard of Women in Science?	90.7	42.9	24.06	.000**	53.7	76.7	5.510	.019*	95.8	84.2	52.6	37.1	25.92	.000**
   Heard of ITROW?	27.9	58.9	9.441	.002**	48.1	39.5	.720	.396	16.7	42.1	68.4	51.4	12.66	.005**
   Heard of ITROW grants?	20.9	55.4	11.97	.001**	42.6	34.9	.597	.440	12.5	31.6	63.2	48.6	13.51	.004**

   • Those in FCSM are more likely to know about Women in Science. Men in both colleges are more likely to know of Women in Science. The significant interaction indicates the gender trend is not the same for both colleges.
   • Those in CLA are more likely to know about ITROW. The significant interaction indicates the trend is not the same for both colleges. Women in FCSM are more likely to know of ITROW where as the men in CLA are more likely to know of it.
   • Those in CLA are more likely to know about ITROW Grants. The significant interaction indicates the trend is not the same for both colleges. Women in FCSM are more likely to know of ITROW Grants where as the men in CLA are more likely to know of them.
   
   

   Balancing Life

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 41) Mean	CLA (N = 56) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 53) Mean	Male (N = 42) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   I often have to forgo professional activities because of personal responsibilities.	2.17	2.18	.146	.703	2.37	1.90	4.455	.038*	.092	.762

   • Women were more likely to report missing out on professional activities because of personal responsibilities. There was no significant difference across college.
   
   

   Children

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 26 Mean	CLA (N = 33) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 35) Mean	Male (N = 23) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   Impact of child care for school aged children after school or during the summer?	3.00	2.44	.005	.945	3.19	0.50	16.485	.001**	1.908	.182
   Impact of back-up or drop-in care when your usual arrangements do no work?	3.70	3.07	3.372	.081	.352	2.25	5.678	.027*	.686	.417
   Impact of assistance with referrals to non-university child care situations?	3.30	2.80	1.699	.206	3.38	1.00	16.041	.001**	.109	.745

   • Women reported a higher impact of child care for school aged children after school and during the summer. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Women reported greater impact of referrals of off campus child care. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Women reported greater impact of drop-in care. There was no significant difference across college.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Mean	CLA Mean	Chi-Square	P Value	Female Mean	Male Mean	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA  Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	Chi Square	P Value
   Impact of childcare when your child is sick?	3.80	3.33	9.965	.005**	3.71	2.50	12.105	.002**	3.50	3.87	1.50	3.62	5.912	.024*

   • Those in FCSM and women reported greater impact of child care when their child is sick. The significant interaction indicates the gender trend is not the same in both colleges.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Y%	CLA Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Do you currently use or need any day care services?	38.5	48.5	.593	.441	60.0	17.4	10.27	.001**	15.4	61.5	20.0	59.1	10.34	.016*

   • Females were more likely to be using child care. The significant interaction indicates this trend is not consistent across colleges.
   
   

   Family

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 36) Mean	CLA (N = 43) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 43) Mean	Male (N = 42) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   Department meetings frequently occur early in the morning or late in the day.	2.45	2.16	3.260	.074	2.66	1.83	14.331	.000**	.480	.490
   The department is supportive of family leave.	2.98	2.21	5.457	.022*	2.30	2.83	1.868	.175	3.046	.084
   Faculty who have children are considered to be less committed to their careers.	1.80	1.48	4.867	.030*	1.92	1.24	12.418	.001**	.032	.858

   • Women were more likely to feel department meetings were too early or too late in the day. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Those in FCSM felt their department was more supportive of family leave. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Those in FCSM and women felt that faculty who have children are viewed as less committed to their career. There was no significant difference across college.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  Y%	CLA Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male  Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Chi Square	P Value
   Does you partner prefer full time employment?	64.7	70.7	.590	.899	82.5	50.0	9.331	.025*	11.22	.261

   • Females were more likely to report that their partners would prefer full time employment. There was no significant difference across college.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Y%	CLA Y%	Chi Square	P Value	Female Y%	Male Y%	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male  Y %	FCSM Female Y%	CLA  Male Y%	CLA Female Y%	Chi Square	P Value
   Is your partner employed full time?	63.9	77.3	2.163	.539	88.6	48.6	19.27	.000**	42.1	88.2	56.2	88.9	23.88	.004**

   • Women were more likely to have partners who worked full time. The significant interaction indicates this trend is not the same across colleges.
   
   Previous Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 0) Mean	CLA   (N = 5) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 6) Mean	Male  (N = 2) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   Most faculty in my department were supportive of colleagues who wanted to balance their family and career lives.	1.00	3.22	13.286	.007**	2.67	2.67	.110	.749	2.745	.136

   • Those in CLA are more likely to feel their department is supportive of faculty who want to balance career and family.
   
   

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM Mean	CLA Mean	Chi Square	P Value	Female Mean	Male Mean	Chi Square	P Value	FCSM Male Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	Chi Square	P Value
   It was difficult for faculty in my department to adjust their work schedules to care for children or other family members.	4.33	2.22	17.260	.003**	2.67	3.00	1.373	.275	6.00	3.50	1.50	2.43	6.536	.034*

   • Those in FCSM are more likely to report that it is difficult for faculty in their department to adjust their schedules around personal responsibilities. The significant interaction indicates the gender trend is different across colleges. Women in CLA report more difficulty adjusting their schedules where as men in FCSM report more difficulty adjusting their schedules.
   
   

   Women Faculty

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 38) Mean	CLA (N = 52) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 52) Mean	Male (N = 37) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   There are too few women faculty in my department.	2.83	3.41	10.361	.002**	3.08	3.25	3.291	.073	3.509	.064
   My department has identified ways to recruit women.	3.08	3.18	.021	.884	3.40	2.76	5.038	.027*	.011	.916
   My department has actively recruited women.	2.95	2.82	1.317	.254	3.21	2.46	6.863	.010**	3.807	.054
   My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for women.	2.79	3.42	4.041	.048*	3.28	2.97	.478	.491	.838	.363
   My department has too few women in leadership positions.	2.66	3.04	5.612	.020*	2.55	3.37	15.749	.000**	.177	.675
   My department has made an effort to promote women into leadership positions.	2.95	2.81	.690	.408	3.12	2.51	4.430	.038*	.053	.818

   • Those in CLA were more likely to feel there are not enough women in the department. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Women were more likely to feel that their department has identified ways to recruit women faculty. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Women were more likely to feel that their department actively recruits women faculty. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Those in CLA were more likely to report that their department has taken steps to enhance the climate for women faculty. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Those in CLA were more likely to feel their department has too few women in leadership positions. There was no significant difference across gender.
   • Men were more likely to feel their department has too few women in leadership positions. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Women were more likely to believe their department has made an effort to promote women. There was no significant difference across college.
   
   Previous Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 3) Mean	CLA   (N = 9) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 9) Mean	Male (N = 3) Mean	F Score	P Value	FCSM Male Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	F Score	P Value
   My department had identified ways to recruit women.	1.33	1.11	.554	.478	1.00	1.67	.017	.899	0.00	2.00	1.00	1.43	5.389	.049

   • Although there are not significant differences for college or gender in the belief that their department has identified ways to recruit women, the significant interaction indicates a different trend for each college.
   
   Faculty who Declined Offers

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 7) Mean	CLA (N = 6) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 7) Mean	Male (N = 5) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   The department had taken steps to enhance the climate for women.	0.00	2.33	9.224	.016*	1.43	0.80	1.694	.229	1.694	.229

   • Those interviewing in CLA were more likely to feel the department had taken step to enhance the climate for women. There was no significant difference across gender.
   
   

   Faculty of Color

   Current Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM  (N = 38) Mean	CLA (N = 53) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 49) Mean	Male (N = 38) Mean	F Score	P Value	F Score	P Value
   The climate for faculty of color in my department is good.	2.22	2.54	.359	.551	2.72	2.00	5.068	.027*	.005	.945
   My department has too few faculty of color in leadership positions.	2.39	2.28	.185	.668	1.98	2.79	9.736	.002**	.028	.867
   My department has made an effort to promote faculty of color into leadership positions.	3.39	3.15	1.256	.265	3.52	2.89	5.046	.027*	.170	.681

   • Women were more likely to believe the climate for faculty of color is their department is good. There was no significant difference across college.
   • Men were more likely to believe their department has too few faculty of color in leadership positions. There was no significant difference across college
   • Women were more likely to believe their department has made and effort to promote faculty of color. There was no significant difference across college.
   
   Previous Faculty

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 3) Mean	CLA (N = 9) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 9) Mean	Male (N = 3) Mean	F Score	P Value	FCSM Male Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	F Score	P Value
   There were too few faculty of color in my department.	3.33	3.78	7.680	.024*	3.78	3.33	7.680	.024*	2.00	4.00	4.00	3.71	13.653	.006**

   • Those in CLA were more likely to believe there are too few faculty of color in the department. Women more likely to believe there are too few faculty of color in the department. The significant interaction suggests the gender trend does not hold across college. Men in FCSM were less likely to feel there are too few faculty of color in the department.
   
   Faculty who Declined Offers

   Item	College				Gender				Interaction
   	FCSM (N = 6) Mean	CLA (N = 6) Mean	F Score	P Value	Female (N = 7) Mean	Male (N = 5) Mean	F Score	P Value	FCSM Male; Mean	FCSM Female Mean	CLA Male Mean	CLA Female Mean	F Score	P Value
   The department had taken steps to enhance the climate for faculty of color.	0.00	1.33	5.020	.000**	1.14	0.00	5.020	.000**	0.00	0.00	0.00	2.67	5.020	.000**

   • Those who interviewed in CLA were more likely to believe the department had taken steps to enhance the climate for faculty of color. Women were more likely to believe the department had take steps to enhance the climate for faculty of color. However, the significant interaction indicates the gender trend is different across colleges. Women in CLA were more likely to believe the department had taken steps to enhance the climate but this did not hold for FCSM.
   
   

4. Climate Survey Qualitative Feedback
   
   Campus Climate was assessed using a modification of The Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison developed by the Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The following are some comments from the free responses that support the quantitative data presented above.
   
   Hiring Process
   
   The process was very positive for me except for negotiating start up. I think that at this point my personal goals with reference to teaching and research meshes well with my department's goals but often they seem in conflict with that of the college and university.
   
   The department, college and university should be transparent with regards to funds available for initiating research programs. Exact numbers were never given and subtractions were constantly made for shared equipment. These research initiating packages should be comparable to that received by faculty at other universities with similar research productivity expectations.
   
   Although I thought the university would be more supportive of research ($$$) and the teaching load is too heavy. But they did warn me about it.
   
   Tenure
   
   I was lucky enough to get tenure before the expectation for scholarship was sharply raised. Even so, it was a nerve-racking experience and I worried all six years.
   
   I think it's been fine, manageable. I mean it's a lot of work. It didn't feel unfair to me. It would be nice if it was a little bit more explicit and coherent across the university and the colleges what is really expected and what is supposed to be in those folders. It's nuts. I got a panicked email saying "you need to change this in your binder within the next 24 hours" I mean it's just nuts. So that should be very clear exactly what goes in the 1-inch binder and what does the university, what do the colleges require verses the departments. But that's the only real complaint I have about that.
   
   I know this is an issue among faculty at least, is the maternity leave policy. I've had two kids since I've been here. I'm not unhappy with the way that was handled, but I wish, in talking to other faculty mainly in this college, it seems like a rather arbitrary process. It depends on who your department chair is and that doesn't seem right. I'm not unhappy with it, but I also feel like I lucked out a little. [I: So do you feel like you were given appropriate accommodation?] Yes. In the end, well yes for the most part I do feel that way. I recognize that part of my particular situation was unique in that I had my first child not too long after I began. I felt a little constrained in terms of what I thought I could I ask for and really demand. So, I didn't demand a lot and I didn't get a lot. In that regard, especially for people just starting out in the position I was in, like I said I'm not unhappy with it, but I do wish it had been a little bit easier to figure out what kinds of things were available, what kinds of considerations, what the law was, what Towson's policy, particularly policies that are about taking leave.
   
   I received almost no support. I had to go outside the department for help putting together my tenure materials. I did not have any of the benefits in terms of assigned time, reduced teaching, reduced service, or anything. In fact, as one of only a few women in the department for a number of years, I was expected from the first to serve on departmental committees or to represent the department on other committees. I wish I had received the kind of support that new faculty in our department receive now. On the other hand, I am happy that I didn't have the pressure to publish that they currently have.
   
   I didn't use the stop-the-clock policy. I don't even know what it is or if it was available when I came up. If it is what I think it is, it would have been quite useful as I had two pre-school children one of whom has health issues.
   
   [I: And so did they stop the clock for you?] They did! And actually I was on so much research I told them not to stop the clock but they did and it was ok. And I took an unpaid year of leave. And what ended up happening was my son as an infant was set with numerous, serious medical problems and I would have had to take leave anyway. But just the fact that it had already been approved and I had so much collegial support that and I never felt like it daunted or haunted me, or undermined me when I came back. So I would say that was the most strong, glowing support as being a woman. Now all of that said, I know that there is at least one person, we have a very young department relatively speaking, we have a bimodal distribution. A bunch of us are young and have little kids and then a bunch of people who have been around 20-30 years. The younger group, especially for the women, it is very difficult when they're 5 and under. When they have all those illnesses and stuff and they build their immune system, it's very hard to be a faculty member. It'd be very hard to do any career.
   
   I am sorry to say that I came to see the TU environment as a kind of black hole for scholarship. I saw many promising new faculty arrive since the 1990s but the heavy service and teaching load and the lack of a very intellectual environment seems to have deterred them from making as much progress on their scholarship as they might have.
   
   I received minimal support from the University for my research. For the first ten years or so the University's office on research was very weak and internal funding for research and travel to conferences was inadequate.
   
   Colleagues
   
   One of the most appealing qualities of TU is the positive interaction that I continually experience both among the faculty and the administration/staff. I have yet to sense any tension among the faculty within this department, and the administration has never told me that I was out of line or jumping the chain of command when I had a question.
   
   Generally I do think it's a positive, supportive environment. I mean for the most part my interaction with administrators has been positive and supportive. They're mostly a friendly bunch to deal whenever I do have to deal with them. Yeah, every so often there are slightly less than positive interactions. But usually they just come up around misunderstanding about rooms or space or duties that you have. Sometimes I feel like there's a little bit of tension between faculty and administration like the administration are looking for one thing from their faculty and the faculty are trying to do something else. And that sort of thing gets kind of thrown at us or you need to focus on this or you need to worry about this. But for the most part I think it's pretty good, pretty positive and certainly among my faculty members its positive in the department.
   
   Everybody is very nice. I think that that was a little jarring when I realized that the niceness up front wasn't, didn't translate to what was said about you behind closed doors.
   
   Extremely positive. Very informative, friendly, courteous, and encouraging.
   
   I don't feel that the administration above the college-level is particularly supportive of faculty.
   
   Diversity
   
   There sometimes seems to be little support. Yet, there is some effort to integrate those groups into the university. This is another issue to which individuals offer lots of lip service with no real action.
   
   Earlier there were fewer of us and earlier on you'd have people grouping and the old boys' network and remaining girls' network. So information wouldn't flow. All the usual things people talk about with women in organizations. There appeared to be a glass ceiling. Then after a while, the administrators seemed to become more equitable and there were more women in administration. I noticed in the past ten years there seem to be once again fewer women in administration and now I think we're turning around again with more. Minorities, same thing. It seems to have gone in waves but generally the trend is upward over the years. I think right now among the people that I interact with that, I don't know what happens in a lot of departments cause it's so big, but among the people I see or the people I interact with I think we have what I think is a real plus. I think we've achieved this, the nuances of course are in the culture and they are still going to be there so there will be times people will not necessarily address women at a meeting or ignore what they say as opposed to if a guy makes a comment. The culture of business that is still somewhat sexist or racist or classist or whatever, that still exists to some degree but people are trying and they are being more careful. I applaud that. That's good.
   
   Historically in our department, there was a fair amount of tension between different groups of faculty members and they didn't interact that much. And the lines tended to break down along gender lines especially and to a lesser extent along minority lines and certain kinds of identities. But that has lessened a lot over the years. I don't see it as much anymore. I still feel like there isn't that much interaction among the faculty. I mean there is among pockets of it but sort of across those lines there isn't that much, again that might reflect some very quiet kinds of what I would call gender discomfort or minority group discomfort. It's not overt sexism, it's not discrimination but it's sort of "I'm a guy and I hang out with guys.
   
   I sensed that the department was making an effort to diversify the faculty demographic, and I was never mistreated or experience prejudice based on my gender, race, or nationality. Campus as a whole, including students and faculty, could make more effort to be inclusive and diversify the profile.
   
   Too few minorities to make it a comfortable place for minorities and for most of my years at TU my department had none. I think there was resistance among some to anyone, for example, who had an accent!
   
   Balance/Family
   
   There have been times when my children have interfered with work- I have had to bring them with me to a few classes, and have had to stay home with them a few times.
   
   On the one hand, one of the nice things about an academic environment is there is flexibility. You can shift when your work needs to get done. When my children were young I was able to coordinate with my wife their care around the university's schedule. I think that still remains one of the real advantages of this kind of a work environment as compared to many is that it allows you that flexibility of participating in your children's lives more than the typical person can.
   
   It's like my teaching, I try to get times that are suitable for school pick up but my graduate class was at night this year, I changed times, because the graduate class normally runs from 6-9. Which to me is crazy because that is right in the middle of bed time for him because he goes to bed at 8. That means I don't see him all day. That's really really tough. So I moved my graduate class from 4-7 and students hated it. They only see it from their point of view that they didn't like that time. But then that brought my teaching evaluations down which can have a knock-on effect on your pay raise. It's like you're stuck in this trap
   
   I think the university needs to provide some kind of better child care that includes things like all the days when, for example, Baltimore County has off about two days a month for the kids. So if Towson had some kind of drop-in care when county schools close that would extremely helpful. It's nonstop interference. I think that in general, it's not just for women. It is critical.
   
   I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Towson, and I would not have left if my partner was able to find a comparable position in the area. From that experience I would suggest that Towson University improve spousal hiring policies to retain faculty members. With so many academic couples nowadays, and women increasingly pursuing tenure-track career paths, finding academic jobs in the same area is extremely challenging. Towson's location in DC metro should be an advantage, but the university can do more to support departments whose selected applicants wish to bring their partners. It will be a good retention practice, as they are less likely to leave (considering how difficult it would be for them to find jobs together again).


5. Qualitative Feedback from Faculty that Declined Offer Interview Responses
   
   It was well organized. I think I was able to meet with most everyone in the department as well as some key individuals outside of the department that related to my field. I enjoyed the faculty dining room and the campus seemed visually pleasant. The search chair and department chair were friendly and helpful. I did enjoy meeting most of the faculty I met and felt I made a good connection with at least two of the faculty I met.
   
   Many of the faculty were friendly and engaging. My Friday morning job talk was well attended by an engaging set of undergraduate students.
   
   One faculty member indicated that he did not take my sub-discipline seriously. The search appeared underfunded, with faculty having to pool their own money for coffee, for example. Furthermore, the department seemed under-resourced given that individual faculty members were made to share offices. This concern was extended by the unwillingness of the department chair to consider negotiating the terms of the offer when it was made given that I had competing offers.
   
   Reasons for Declination of Offer
   
   Overall fit was good. Available resources were poor. The one thing that really concerned me was that all of the other faculty were female and with one exception, married. At the time, I was a single man. The married faculty, who all had access to a second and larger income, seemed utterly unconcerned about the low salaries. Obviously, that was more of a concern for me.
   
   The terms of the offer, both financially and in terms of teaching load and research support, was much poorer than a competing offer. Moreover, I felt hostility from some potential colleagues at Towson and that the department was dysfunctional and would not create a positive work environment for me.
   
   I would not be able to pay my student loans and my living costs on the salary being offered. Also, I wouldn't be able to pick up a 2nd job because the expectation for research/scholarship (with lack of support) and the teaching load would be too much to then also have a second job.
   
   Positives: Quality of Department, diversity of research interests, shared faculty governance
   
   Detractors: Teaching Load, service obligations, lack of faculty diversity, climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender scholars
   
   Liked Most: Department collegiality, Faculty Interactions, Support and mentoring for new faculty,
   
   Reasons for decline: other offers that would provide more opportunity for research, high teaching load and inadequate research support, lack of opportunity for spouse, homophobic treatment, salary too low, faculty comments about lack of administrative support, shared offices (CLA), social isolation (for male in predominantly female department)


6. Qualitative Feedback from Faculty who Left Towson University
   
   Any hesitation with accepting offer: University status/low prestige, lack of resources, commuter nature, teaching load, lack of research support, lack of moving support or start-up package, no adjustment time prior to starting to teach,
   
   Tenure Clock—not aware you could extend the tenure clock—time constraints too great a burden to be success and raise young children,
   
   Promotion and Tenure: primarily one-size fits all rather than faculty being valued for their unique strengths and attributes, changing expectations with changing administrations, inconsistency from department to department and college to college
   
   Family Issues: Need formal maternity leave policy with pay, liberal leave policy, need affordable, high-quality on-site childcare for infants to preschoolers with extended hours, extended tenure options,
   
   Equity Issues—salary discrimination; based on sexual orientation and national origin
   
   Liked most: collegiality, good students, secretarial support, TAs, teaching and mentoring
   
   Liked least: lack of resources and time for research, increased teaching and advising responsibilities, pay, lack of respect from USM, infrastructure, administrative indifference, inequality in evaluation, lack of prestige of the university
   
   Why Left: better job, better pay; lack of graduate students and poor quality of undergrads, better teaching load and better prepared students, position more in line with career goals, not respected as a clinician, cannot balance family and professional life, dual academic career issues—both needed to find a position,
   
   Why opportunities blocked-lack of environment for scholarly research, lack of administrative support for research, low prestige university, too many service obligations
   
   To stay at Towson University? Higher salary, lighter teaching load, respect from administration, merit based rewards (not necessarily monetary) and improved campus morale, tenure through support for research delayed promotion, fair evaluation of appeal, extended, child care support, jobs for spouse/partner, nothing
   
   Better work environment: value quality education over quantity, facilities support, need mentor support for women with families from those that have done it, support new parents with paid maternity/paternity leave, reduce teaching load


7. Follow up Survey for Current Faculty
   
   Hesitate to accept: commute, cost of living, salary, heavy teaching load, available resources, conflicting information regarding tenure process, low start up, support for research, prestige of university, no Ph.D. program, quality of graduate program (stipends not competitive)
   
   Reset tenure clock: administration upheaval, baby
   
   Reduced responsibilities: one-course load first year, on-line teaching following baby
   
   Barriers to leadership position: Associate Professor instead of full, Lecturer, family commitments, overloaded, working on another degree
   
   Satisfaction at TU: professional development, great colleagues, friendly atmosphere, work with students, teaching, research success and research collaborations, ability to teach and do research, internal support and startup
   
   Detract from Satisfaction: Science education scholarship is considered second-rate, lack of infrastructural support, department inequity, salary, increased demands on time, uncertain contract renewal, decision making process—not include all faculty, changing administration and policies, mixed messages about university priorities, low support for graduate assistants, lack of childcare, lack of support to assist spouse/partner find position
   
   Childcare/Eldercare suggestions: cheaper child care, day-care programs, requirement to pay child care in advance is not fair or reasonable, infant care, priority for faculty and staff in day care, no meetings in late afternoon, let summer count toward workload, drop in child care and/or child care co-ops for when regular child care is not available, flex work scheduling, written maternity leave policy, paid semester of maternity leave, sick leave bank, allow for unpaid leaves of absences, support network for single parents


8. Policy overview and comparison with peer institutions
   
   Institutional data was determined largely from a review of internal documents including search committee reports, faculty reports, and University policies (regarding salary ranges, promotion and tenure, maternity leave, etc.). Documents included search records from the Office of Equal Opportunity, employment data from Human Resources, and promotion and tenure data from individual Departments. Compositional/demographic data was collected with the assistance of the Offices of Institutional Research and Assessment.
   
   Michelle Snyder--was offered "Stop the Clock" option for tenure as is having her second child week of August 10, 2009. Instead she is going to teach starting week of August 31st because Stop the Clock is not really Stop the Clock because if you use it and go up for tenure and are denied you do not have an extra year--you are terminated immediately. This needs to be explored--compared with other USM system policies.


9. Key Findings
   
   Tenure Clock Extensions
   Campus Childcare
   Parental Leave
   Check Ohio State Policy http://ceos.osu.edu/index.php?id=55
   Check UWisc-Mad http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/


10. Recommendations for Institutional Transformation
    
    Best practices to enhance academic institutions' ability to recruit, retain and advance women faculty--by controlling gender bias and through family-responsive policies (http://www.worklifelaw.org/EffectivePracticesToRetainWomen/index.html)
    
    Establish institutional needs--comparison with peer institutions and their policies and internal surveys
    
    Maternal and Parental Leave
    
    Stop the Clock policies
    
    Dual Career Support
    
    Childcare needs
    
    Mentoring and Networking programs
    
    Control Bias
    
    Ensure the Practice Supports Policy

Appendix II:  Search quantitative data 2005-2009

Appendix III:  Peer Institution Policy Summary

Diversity and Equal Opportunity

• 8 peers state use of Affirmative Action
• 4 peers state compliance with state and federal laws
• 4 peers list specific processes to which standards should be applied (i.e. hiring, compensation, etc.)
• 2 peers allow exceptions for “bona fide” job qualifications
• 6 peers list sexual orientation in general statement
• 2 peers list sexual orientation separately
• 1 peer lists pregnancy in general statement
• All 4 aspirations state compliance with state and federal laws
• 1 aspiration states use of Affirmative Action
• 1 aspiration lists specific process to which standards should be applied and there should be no discrimination in working conditions
• 2 aspirations list sexual orientation in general statement
• 2 aspirations list pregnancy/parental status in general statement

TU
        * States commitment to diverse community with respect and inclusion
        * Compliance with USM policies on diversity and equal opportunity
        * Any alleged violations must be immediately reported to Fair Practices Officer
        * Prohibits discrimination in employment, job placement, promotion, economic benefits
        * Groups listed: race, color, religion, age, national origin, sex or disability
        * Special Conditions: gender separation for restrooms, sports teams, etc. and "bona fide job
           qualifications
        * Formal and Informal resolution procedures detailed
        * Discipline can include termination

Hiring Process

• 5 peers discuss role of EEO and/or Affirmative action is selection
• 2 peers set standards for advertising vacancy
• 4 peers make reference to desired qualifications
• 2 peers made set guidelines for diverse search committee composition
• 1 aspiration discussed role of EE0 and/or Affirmative action in selection
• 2 aspirations set standards for advertising vacancy
• 3 aspirations make reference to desired qualifications
• 3 aspirations set guidelines for diverse search committee compositions

TU
        * All search committees are required to have female reps and should have minority reps
        * Minority interviewees must have opportunity to meet with minority faculty during campus visit
        * Advertising standards to ensure announcement reaches minority groups
        * Interview pool must be approved as meeting affirmative action plan by EEO

Promotion and Tenure

• 1 peers required written explanation of reason(s) for decision
• 1 peer considers all work, even that done prior to appointment
• 1 peer only considers work in rank
• 1 peer specifies the number of votes needed for tenure
• 2 peers require external references
• 3 peers specify a certain number of years in rank before tenure and/or promotion
• 3 peers state that departments set guidelines
• 3 peers state evidence of qualifications must be presented in writing
• 5 peers specify types of work to be evaluated, generally teaching, research, and service
• 5 peers set qualifications; typically experience, performance, achievement, and professional development
• 7 peers state primary responsibility and initial decision making lies with faculty in the department. 4 of those go on to say final decisions are up to high level administration (i.e. provost of president)
• 1 aspiration states tenure should be based on merit without regard for race, color, religion, sex, ethnic, or national origin
• 2 aspirations state tenure based on performance and contributions
• 3 aspirations set time for standard probationary period
• 3 aspirations specify types of work to be evaluated, generally teaching, research, and service
• 4 aspirations state the decisions are committee based. 2 of those mentions a committee higher than the department

TU
        * Criteria are: degree, teaching/advising, service, and scholarly growth
        * Does not detail each factor that must be considered
        * States promotion/reappointment takes judgment, discussion, and knowledge of TU
           objectives/mission
        * Faculty Expectations are: high level of humane, ethical, and professional behavior; effective
           teaching; attend class and advise students; support the mission and plans of the dept, college,
           and TU; commitment to scholarly and professional development; participation in annual faculty
           evaluation (Detailed list included)

Leave Time

• 1 peer offers pay for half of family medical leave
• 1 peer provides accrual of paid short term disability days
• 1 peer offers 6 weeks paid pregnancy/maternity leave
• 1 peer offers 8 weeks maternity
• 1 peer offers up to 12 weeks of personal leave w/ pay
• 6 peers specify how leave is accrued
• 1 aspiration specifies that no more than 40 hours of paid leave can be used continuously without special approval
• 1 aspiration provide 30 days paid maternity leave
• 3 aspirations specify how leave is accrued

TU
        * 12.5 creditable sick leave days/year
        * Up to 25 non-creditable/collegially supported sick days-restrictions apply
        * 10-month ontract get 15 days of paid annual leave to be taken last 15 days of contract unless
           stated at appointment
        * Less than 10-month contract gets annual leave
        * Part-time, 10-month get prorated annual leave to be taken at end of contract unless stated at
           appointment
        * Full time 12-month get 22 days annual and 3 days paid personal. Increases to 25 days annual
           after 20 years employment
        * Part-time, 12-month same as full time but prorated
        * Annual days taken must be approved by superviso
        * Annual leave accumulated up to 50 days may be carried to new year

Leave Without Pay

• 1 peer offers leave without pay after 15 week paid family medical leaves used
• 1 peer offers 6 months for family and 1 year for personal reasons
• 1 peer states that unpaid leaves of absence do not count toward tenure thus adding time to probationary period
• 1 peer states that unpaid leave does not constitute a break in service
• 1 peer specifies max of 2 years unpaid leave
• 2 peers specify that all paid leave must be used before giving unpaid leave
• 5 peers specify max of 1 year unpaid leave
• 6 peers specify 12 weeks for unpaid family medical leave
• 1 aspiration offers reduced workload as alternative
• 1 aspiration specifies max of 1 year unpaid leave
• 1 aspiration states that unpaid leave does not constitute a break in service
• 3 aspirations specify 12 weeks for unpaid family medical leave

TU
        * Must be currently employed with continuing contract, employed for at least 2 semesters or
           12 months, and plan to return
        * Generally no longer and a year
        * Generally not counted as service to sabbatical eligibility
        * Can be given for work to promote TU's mission or personal/health reasons

Benefits

• 1 peer offers disability salary continuance
• 1 peer offers dual career couples employment assistance
• 1 peer offers continuation of benefits during leaves of absence due to illness or injury
• 2 peers offer dependent care services and/or assistance
• 3 peers offer flexible reimbursement/spending plans
• 5 peers offer tuition benefits
• 6 peers offer disability plans
• 2 aspirations offer benefits for domestic partners
• 3 aspirations offer tuition benefits

TU
        * Retirement plans
        * Insurance Options- multiple options
        * Up to 8 credits/semester tuition at any USM for full time faculty
        * Full time 100% tuition for spouses and dependents (if full time for 2+ years) only at TU, only first
           undergraduate degree
        * Possible 50% tuition for spouse and dependents is program not offered at TU
        * Connect from home web service

Appendix IV: Peer Institution Faculty Data

Appendix V:  TU FCSM Salary Comparison

Appendix VI:  Stop the Clock Policy Review

Michelle Snyder--was offered "Stop the Clock" option for tenure as is having her second child week of August 10, 2009. Instead she is going to teach starting week of August 31st because Stop the Clock is not really Stop the Clock because if you use it and go up for tenure and are denied you do not have an extra year--you are terminated immediately.  This needs to be explored--compared with other USM system policies.
Suggestions (found on web):

1. Incorporate pregnancy/maternity leave into disability leave policy for traditional medical issues (i.e. heart attack)
2. Base policy around caretaking role instead of sex (i.e. must spend 20 hours during typical work hours as caregiver)
3. Use central funding instead of department funds
4. Offer stop the clock policies
5. Make these policies automatic with an opt-out clause. Optional with an opt-in clause still requires the faculty to ask for the privileges making them less utilized.

Concepts in polices from other universities:

• 7 year probation, max 10 years w/ extensions
• 7 year probation, usually not more than 1 year extension granted
• 6 year probation, max 2 w/ extensions (4)
• 6 year probation, no max extension
• does not eliminate 12 month notice of termination
• provides reduced teaching option
• extension provided for child birth/placement or serious health condition (8)
• only provided for primary caregiver or child or family member (if not personal illness)
• Request for extension must be in writing (5)
• Extensions are granted automatically for first two and can be requested after that.
• Extensions are granted automatically w/o limit
• Extensions are granted automatically with 6 month leave, can be requested if leave is shorter
• Extension are granted automatically w/ a max of 2 if at least a 12 week absence, must request if take less leave
• Extensions are granted automatically w/ a max of 2 if use 60+ days of approved FML, must otherwise be requested
• extension can be provided for events that significantly hinder research (i.e. destruction of facilities or lack of promised resources)(3)
• criteria for tenure not changed w/ extension (7)

Summary for each University Included in Review

1. University of Pennsylvania: 7 year probation; extension if probation up to 10 years for childcare/adoption, illness, or catastrophic event that hinders research; “without prejudice to the obligation to provide twelve-months’ notice of termination;” Dean will request all reviewers evaluation the probation period as it was seven years (despite actual time); reduced teaching option for child birth/adoption.
2. University of Texas, Austin: 6 year probation; can extend for a max of two years (usually only one) for personal circumstances including child birth/adoption, care for preschool child, self or family illness.
3. University of Iowa: Probation norm of 6 years; automatic 1 year extension for addition of child (must request to not get it); extension can be requested for other personal reasons including illness; contract extension not guaranteed in last year.
4. Georgetown: 7 year probation; eligible to put self up anytime after third year; if wait to 7th year must request additional terminal appointment that is not guaranteed; may reapply for tenure if denied before in 6th year; probation can be extended to 8 years.
5. Princeton: Automatic one year extension for every child with no limit, may later request early tenure.
6. Tennessee Universities: applies to all state universities in Tenn. Leaves of absence excluded from 6 year probation; 2 year max. Times when clock is stopped do not count towards probation.
7. Michigan State: up to 2 automatic extensions if leave is at least 6 months, must otherwise be requested.
8. University of Wisconsin, Madison: Extension may be requested to extend 7 year probation. Tenure evaluation will treat extended time as only 7 years. Requests due to childbirth or adoption will not be denied.
9. University of Washington; Vague policy, automatic year extension if more than 6 months leave.
10. North Carolina State University: 6 year probation with 2 years of extension allowed. Can request to be reviewed at original time or end of extension. Automatic if use 60 + days of approved FML, may request extension otherwise.