Reports
TO: The University Community
FROM: Committee on Retention of Women and Minority Faculty & Staff
DATE: May 23, 2000
This letter provides our summary of the SRI Report on Retention of Women and Minority Faculty and Staff at The Ohio State University.
Over the years numerous University commissions and reports have documented climate problems for women and minorities and have recommended institutional changes. Even with positive institutional actions in response to these internal reports, the retention rate for women and minorities did not increase. In 1998, the Council on Academic Excellence for Women (CAEW) recommended that an external, objective consulting firm be hired to analyze the climate for women and minorities. The purpose was to deepen institutional understanding of the issues that negatively impact the climate for retention of women and minorities.
SRI submitted its final report to the committee on May 15, 2000. The report focuses on faculty and staff in three colleges and two vice presidencies. However, the report includes a sample of minority faculty from throughout the university. Attached you will find how SRI conducted the study, the principal findings for both faculty and staff, and SRI's recommendations. Copies of the full SRI report will be available by the end of this quarter in the office of each dean and vice president, in the Office of Minority Affairs, in the Office of the University Senate, in The Women's Place, and on closed reserve in the following campus libraries: Main; Science and Engineering; Health Sciences; Agriculture; Biological Sciences & Pharmacy; Business; Education, Human Ecology & Social Work; Veterinary Medicine. Each regional campus, including ATI, will also have a copy on reserve.
SRI identified ìa cluster of fundamental issuesî that the University must address ìin a timely and effective way if the climate for retention of women and minorities is to become more favorable.î SRI further found that each segment of our community experiences the climate from a different point of view resulting in ìdeeply rooted differences in attitudes and viewpoints between the white male majority, taken as a whole, and women and minoritiesóparticularly minority female faculty.î Successfully addressing these fundamental issues requires each of us to understand that we view climate differently. Without this understanding by each segment of our community, it will be impossible either individually or collectively to contribute to its improvement for all.
Our committee's belief is that the findings will be useful for the university as a whole and not just for the five units studied. For the next twelve months our committee will continue to provide oversight for the institutional response to the SRI study. We will make periodic progress reports to the university community.
Deb Ballam, Professor, Fisher College of Business
Linda Bernhard (Chair), Associate Professor, College of Nursing & Women's Studies
Nancy Campbell, Director, Organization and Human Resource Development
Susan Fisher, Professor, College of Biological Sciences
Judy Fountain, Executive Director, The Women's Place
Jeri Kozobarich, Development, College of Education
Larry Lewellen, Associate VP, Human Resources
David Miller, Associate Professor, Germanic Languages
Barbara Rich, Special Assistant to the Vice President and Director, Parent Association
Nancy Rudd, Vice Provost, Academic Affairs
Gregory Williams, Dean, College of Law
I. Background for the Study and How SRI Conducted the Study
In 1998, OAA and Human Resources appointed a task force, the Committee on Retention of Women and Minority Faculty and Staff, to provide oversight for the process. In late 1998, upon recommendation of the Committee, OAA and Human Resources commissioned SRI International for the project.
Rather than undertaking the mammoth task of studying the university as a whole, OAA and Human Resources, after consultation with CAEW (the task force had not yet been appointed), determined that the outside consultant should focus on the climate during the five year period 1993 to 1998 for women and minority faculty and staff in three collegesóSocial & Behavioral Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine & Public Healthóand two administrative unitsóFinance (before its merger with B&A) and Development. The deans and vice presidents of all of these units volunteered to be part of the study. However, African American, Hispanic, and Native American faculty from throughout the university were included in the study because their numbers in the three colleges were too small to allow for the development of meaningful conclusions based on data analysis. Students were not included in the study because at the time CAEW made its initial recommendation, CAEW was informed that Student Affairs was contemplating developing its own studies on student retention and CAEW did not want to duplicate or interfere with those efforts.
The main components of the study were the collection and analyses of primary data and an analysis of secondary data for the five-year period from 1993 through 1998. Primary data included structured interviews and focus group sessions involving 76 current faculty and 45 current staff, all volunteers; telephone interviews with 23 former female and minority faculty; and surveys of stratified samples of current faculty, including white males. Almost three-fifths (282/501) of the sampled faculty members completed the survey, as did about half (379/783) of the sampled staff members.
The racial/ethnic makeup of the two categories of minority respondent population differs considerably by gender. Faculty respondents in the category ìminority femalesî are approximately 71% African American/Black, 12% Asian American/Asian, 14% Hispanic/Latina, and 1% other or undisclosed. By contrast, the faculty respondent population of ìminority malesî are approximately 37% Asian American/Asian, 30% African American/Black, 25% Hispanic/Latino, and 7% other or undisclosed. For staff, most minority male respondents were Asian American/Asian, foreign born, and highly educated with 17% holding a master's degree and 49% holding a Ph.D. A relatively high proportion of minority males classified as staff members were postdoctoral fellows or in other research positions. By contrast, more than half of the minority female staff respondents were African American/Black, and were more diverse than minority males in their educational attainment and more likely to hold administrative than research positions.
The secondary data analyses used databases supplied by OSU covering faculty in the three colleges and staff in the three colleges and two administrative units, for 1993-1997-98. These databases were used to examine salaries, promotions, tenure (faculty only), and separations. For the faculty salary analysis, SRI used regression models to examine the effects of race/ethnicity and gender on salary, after controlling for academic year, time since hire, and tenure status/rank. SRI did not have data pertaining to other factors that may have influenced salary differences, such as publications, teaching awards, and grants. In the staff salary analysis, SRI controlled for college/unit, academic year, time since hire, and title.
II. SRI Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 16)
SRI Conclusions
The study revealed several issues that negatively affect women respondents, and others that negatively affect minority respondents.
Minority female respondentsówhether faculty or staffóare the most concerned, since they ìliveî at the intersection of both groups. Clearly, minority female faculty respondents (three-fourths of them African American/Black) find that campus treatment of their racial/ethnic group and/or their gender is a serious obstacle to professional success. The picture that many of them report is one of professional isolation, insufficient resources, too little recognition, salary discrimination, and difficulty in arranging the intellectual collaboration needed to succeed in their academic endeavors.
Given the nature of many of their responses, the dominant white male faculty population appears to be most comfortable with the status quo, and females, especially minority female respondents, significantly less so.
The range and depth of differences between the beliefs of white male faculty and female and minority faculty respondents on many issues reveal a stress point. This is particularly true of white males' opposition to implementing many of the changes endorsed by minority females.
Similarly, among staff members there are deep differences of view between male and female respondents, and between white and minority respondents, concerning the work climate.
Clearly, one of the principal issues to be addressed for faculty and staff is that of salary equivalence.
SRI Recommendations
1. Establish mechanisms to closely review salary comparability for faculty and staff.
2. Create an active, highly visible leadership position to deal with the wide range of diversity matters affecting faculty and staff.
3. Promote dialogue concerning diversity issues across the entire faculty and staff.
4. Establish new research undertakings that involve diverse sets of faculty members.
5. Foster forums that facilitate networking among minority faculty across the entire OSU community.
6. Establish individual professional development plans for faculty.
7. Increase opportunities for personal and professional development for staff.
8. Create a more ìfamily-friendlyî organization.
9. Participate more actively in the broad national effort to promote diversity in higher education.
III. SRI Principal Findings
(Note: ìFour groupsî refers to white male, minority male, white female, and minority female.)
Faculty Findings
Demographics of Faculty in the Three Colleges (Chapter 1)
In the last year of the five-year period studies, tenure-track faculty in the three named colleges taken as a whole were 84% white, 82% male, 11% Asian American/Asian, about 1% African American/Black, and about 1% Hispanic/Latino.
Little change occurred over the five-year period in the overall proportion of women or minority faculty in the three units with the exception that African American/Black faculty in the three colleges declined from about 2% to about 1%.
Faculty Teaching Responsibilities and Time Allocation (Chapter 2)
Differences in teaching load for women and minority faculty as compared to white males was small at the undergraduate course level, but at the graduate course level African American/Black respondents of both genders and foreign minority female respondents did teach substantially more courses than white males.
Allocation of time among teaching, service, and research-related activities, as reported by respondents, shows only mild differences by gender and race/ethnic group.
White female respondents and American-born minority respondents reported that they spent more of their time on teaching, teaching-related activities, and student interaction than did white male respondents.
Faculty Research Collaboration and Professional Interaction (Chapter 3)
Lack of collaboration in research was more apparent across racial/ethnic lines than across gender lines.
Minority females were the least likely to report collaborative research experiences with other faculty, regardless of the other faculty member's race/ethnicity or gender.
Female and minority faculty members reported considerable professional interaction (interactions other than research collaboration) with colleagues across gender and racial lines.
Faculty Compensation, Promotion, and Tenure (Chapter 4)
Some patterns of salary differences were found where women and minorities were paid significantly less than their white male counterparts
No significant pattern of differences was detected in any of the colleges with respect to promotion and tenure rates
Faculty Levels of Satisfaction (Chapter 5)
All three groups of female and minority faculty respondents reported lower levels of job satisfaction than white males
More than 40% of all four respondent groups, including white males, were dissatisfied with teaching assistance received.
Most white males, white females, and minority males were satisfied with opportunities to conduct research with senior faculty, but most minority females were not.
Generally, all four groups of respondents were satisfied with quality of communications with faculty and staff in their departments and with information received about funding opportunities.
Guidance and mentoring received from departments was the job aspect of greatest concern to all groups, including white males (from 40 to 48% of each group expressed dissatisfaction).
More than half of minority female respondents were dissatisfied with regard to research assistance received.
Women were much more dissatisfied than men with their department's parental leave policy (37 to 40% for women; 9 to 24% for men).
Faculty Stereotypes, Discrimination, and Sexual Harassment (Chapter 6)
Most survey respondents from all four groups did not report agreement with statements on the survey that reflect negative stereotypes about women or minorities in academe, although there was some variation among colleges on some questions.
A substantial number of female and minority respondents feel that they have experienced discrimination on the basis of salary (40% of minority females, 33% of white females, and 30% of minority males). These perceptions are in part borne out by SRI's study of salaries.
With the exception of salary where 14% felt being discriminated against, there were few perceptions of discrimination among white male respondents.
Other survey data reinforce a notion that some minority and female faculty feel as though they are outsiders. Nearly half of minority females and 30% of white females reported being discriminated against by ìbeing left ëout of the loop' in the department.î Females were more likely to report they had experienced discrimination in the recognition they received for their work, and in the area of guidance and mentoring.
Over 60% of minority women respondents agreed that racial/ethnic minority faculty at OSU must minimize certain characteristics of their racial/ethnic culture.
The vast majority of white (64%) and minority (73%) faculty women respondents agreed that at OSU women have to work harder than men to get the same rewards.
The vast majority of minority women and nearly half of minority male respondents agreed that at OSU racial/ethnic minority faculty members have to work harder than Caucasian faculty to get the same rewards.
About one-sixth of female faculty reported they had experienced some (not further specified) form of sexual harassment at some time in their OSU careers
Faculty Beliefs About OSU and About Academe (Chapter 7)
Respondents from all groups overwhelmingly believed in President Kirwan's commitment to diversity issues.
All three female and/or minority groups tended to have lower appraisals than white males of the levels of commitment of the various individuals or groups to promoting gender and racial/ethnic understanding and cooperation.
All groups but minority females expressed strong confidence in the provost's commitment to diversity.
Both male groups expressed strong confidence in their dean's commitment to diversity; a majority of white female faculty expressed strong confidence in their dean's commitment to diversity; for minority female faculty 70% felt the commitment of their deans to diversity was weak or nonexistent on race/ethnic issues and 55% felt that way with regard to gender issues.
Most respondents found their colleagues and department chairs to be helpful with problem solving; they were less apt to indicate the same for their deans, the Office of Human Resources, the Office of Academic Affairs, and the University Senate.
Only between 20% (minority females) and 35% (white males) of faculty indicated that problems they had raised or might raise had been or would be handled professionally.
Almost a third of female faculty indicated they had either experienced some retaliation or expected to receive retaliation when they raised a problem.
Seventy three percent of minority female respondents, 37% of white female respondents, and 27% of minority male respondents agreed with the statement ìfaculty members who raise questions of gender and racial/ethnic equity are labeled ëtroublemakers.'î Only 13% of white males felt this way.
White males were the only group to respond overwhelmingly negatively to some of the suggested reforms raised in the survey.
Plenty of data indicate that there are gulfs between minority faculty and white males in the interpretation of campus needs and the status quoÖ. This discrepancy underscores a philosophical fissure between the majority of OSU faculty and the minority population that OSU is attempting to retain.
White males make up the vast majority of the OSU faculty, whereas females and minorities are small in number. If the majority, white male population is satisfied with the status quo, while much of the minority, non-male and/or non-white population is not, retention of the minority population will be difficult.
Fifty nine percent of faculty, taken as a whole, support increasing the availability of child care on campus and 45% support implementation of a campus-wide maternity/paternity leave policy.
Faculty Separations and Anticipated Separations (Chapter 8)
When tenured and untenured faculty were analyzed together, in the three colleges taken as a whole, the separation rate was 6.3% per year for females and 3.7% for males. Similarly, the rate of separation for African American/Black faculty was 11.4%, whereas for white males it was 4.1%. All of these differences were statistically significant.
Analyses of tenured and untenured faculty separately revealed small but significant differences in the separation rate for tenured males and females in the three colleges taken as a whole. Similar analyses showed no differences in separation rates of the various racial/ethnic groups, except that untenured Asian American/Asian males had significantly lower separation rates than white males in the three colleges taken together.
Respondents of all four demographic groups were more likely to report a low or very low probability of leaving OSU in the next five years than a high or very high probability. However, almost 40% of untenured minority and female respondents reported a high or very high probability of leaving.
Almost three-quarters of minority female respondents would leave for a faculty position at another university if the opportunity arose, as would half or more of the members of the other three demographic groups (minority malesó63%; white femalesó60%; white malesó50%).
Salary was the top reason given for wanting to leave by all four demographic groups. Minority females listed ìunfriendly environment/discriminationî as their second reason for wanting to leave.
B. Staff Findings
Demographics of Staff in the Five Colleges/Units (Chapter 9)
Staff in the five units taken as a whole were 68% female, 79% white, 7% African American/Black, 7% Asian American/Asian, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and 6% Other.
Over the five-year period, the proportion of female and minority staff fell in some units, but rose in others.
Staff Professional Responsibilities and Staff Development (Chapter 10)
Almost all staff reported their jobs had written job descriptions.
At least 70% of respondents in all four groups reported doing work beyond their job descriptions at least once or twice a month.
Many staff reported that they had participated in helpful staff development activities.
Staff Compensation, Performance Review, and Promotion (Chapter 11)
In all five units studied there were statistically significant differences in salary for some subgroups of women and minority staff, most of which were negative for women and minorities.
Regardless of the grouping, most staff respondents indicated that they had had a performance review within the past 12 months.
Half or more in every demographic group rated their last performance review as good or excellent on three or four of six dimensions. However, almost 1/3 of females rated the review as poor at providing information for determining a merit increase.
With respect to staff promotion rates, a few situations with small group size showed marginally significant or significant results by race/ethnicity or gender, but overall there does not appear to be any pattern of differences in promotion rates.
Staff Levels of Satisfaction (Chapter 12)
More than half of respondents from every group were satisfied with most professional aspects of their jobs, although in general white females were less likely to be satisfied than males, and both groups of minorities were less likely to be satisfied than white females.
Satisfaction with staff interaction and support was somewhat higher among both groups of male respondents than among white female respondents, and lowest among minority female respondents.
All respondent groups were most satisfied with the flexibility of work hours and with the friendliness and cooperation of co-workers.
All respondent groups indicated the lowest degree of satisfaction with salary, opportunity for advancement, and with advice and mentoring received.
Two-fifths of minority and female respondents were dissatisfied with opportunities for advancement.
Minority staff experience a sense of isolation in the workplace.
The only item with which fewer than half of the respondents in all groups expressed satisfaction was parental leave, with percentages ranging from 24% of minority females and white females to 29% of white males.
Staff Stereotypes, Discrimination, and Sexual Harassment (Chapter 13)
Male and female staff survey respondents differed markedly in their views on whether female staff must work harder than male staff to get the same rewards. Twenty-eight percent of minority female staff respondents and 46% of their white female peers agreed or strongly agreed with this notion. In contrast, only 14% of minority male staff respondents and 8% of white male staff respondents agreed.
Perceptions of minority and white survey respondents differed markedly on whether minority staff have to work harder than white staff to get the same rewards. Nearly half of minorities agreed, whereas fewer than 10% of white respondents agreed.
Salary was the job aspect for which the highest percentages of females perceived having experienced discrimination with 48% of minority female respondents and 34% of white female respondents reporting such discrimination.
When broken down by staff categories (CCS, A&P, SAP), white male CCS staff (55%) reported the highest level among any of the groups with respect to salary discrimination.
More females than males, especially minority females, reported being ìleft out of the loopî in their units, although white males in the A&P job classification reported nearly identical levels of discrimination as white females in the A&P classification in being left out of the loop.
More than 30% of both groups of females indicated that white male faculty and staff ignored sexist behavior, but only 18% of both groups of males thought so.
Almost one-third of minority female respondents believed that there was a great degree of tolerance at OSU for racist behaviors.
About half of the total respondents reported having experienced some type of discrimination, including 70% of minority females and 56% of white females.
Eight percent of staff members reported having been sexually harassed at OSU; 1/3 reported the harassment through the formal process at OSU.
Staff Beliefs About OSU and About Academe (Chapter 14)
Overall, staff respondents believed that President Kirwan's commitment to promoting understanding and cooperation on racial/ethnic and gender issues was moderate to strong.
In general, slightly smaller percentages indicated that the levels of commitment of the Provost and their supervisors were moderate or strong; and slightly smaller percentages viewed other top administrators, or their own dean's or vice president's commitment to be moderate or strong.
In general, minority respondents were less likely than white respondents to perceive moderate or strong commitments regarding racial/ethnic understanding and cooperation.
In general, female respondents were less likely than male respondents to perceive moderate or strong commitments regarding intergender understanding and cooperation.
Staff rated supervisors as their most useful problem solving resources, although minority female staff were consistently less likely to have confidence in their supervisors.
Most staff respondents did not believe that too much attention was being paid to race/ethnic or gender issues.
Twenty-nine percent of minority females, 25% of white males, 23% of white females, and 20% of minority males believed that an individual would be labeled a ìtroublemakerî for raising race/ethnic or gender issues.
Fewer than 1/3 of each group believed that staff are rewarded according to merit.
More than 40% of minority females, white females, and white males indicated that there was tension among staff.
Staff survey respondents were enthusiastic about many of the proposed reforms asked about in the survey, with most receiving the endorsement of 50% or more of the staff.
White males had negative reactions to particular recommendations: mandating diversity training, creating offices to focus on the concerns of either females or minority staff, and bringing back the Ombuds position The same steps were much more favorably received by minority staffÖ. There is a real gap in the perceptions of white males and minorities, but there were also some gaps between males and females (e.g., the idea of an office focusing on the concerns of female staff was supported by 56% of all female respondents but only by 43% of all male respondents).
Fifty four % of staff supported increasing the availability of child care on campus and 41% supported implementing a campus wide parental leave policy.
Staff Separations and Anticipated Separations (Chapter 15)
Separation rates for female and minority staff were statistically significantly lower in some units, but higher for Asian American/Asian males than for white males.
More than half of both groups of minority respondents reported that the probability was high or very high that they would leave OSU within 5 years, compared with slightly fewer than one-third of white respondents.
Somewhat more than half of staff respondents in every category indicated they would leave OSU for a job elsewhere if they could, with percentages ranging from 70% of minority male respondents to 61% of white female respondents.
Sixty-one percent of those who said they would leave if they could indicated salary as their primary reason; the next reason most often given was a negative working environment (11%).
