|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 200
APPENDIXES
200
Appendix 1-4
The Surveys
The committee designed the surveys to collect information that has gone largely
uncollected—or has been done for a few universities, but not across many institutions. As noted
earlier in the chapter, the committee designed the departmental survey to focus on processes,
particularly tenure, promotion, and hiring; as well as on departmental characteristics. The
faculty survey, on the other hand, was designed to assess the resources individual faculty
received and to collect sufficient information on faculty to allow for comparisons across fields or
by ranks.
The American Institute of Physics was contracted to craft the final survey instruments
and implement the surveys. The surveys were developed during September 2004. The
departmental questionnaire was primarily a mailed instrument. The faculty questionnaire was
primarily a web-based instrument. For both surveys, multiple follow-ups occurred by mail for
departments and by e-mail for faculty.
The theoretical population for the departmental chair survey consisted of 534
departments. This represents 89 departments from the 89 Research I institutions multiplied by
the six disciplines: biological sciences, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering,
mathematics, and physics. In actuality, a few institutions did not offer all six programs. One
institution, Rockefeller University, had an organizational structure that seemed very different
from the traditional notion of a “department.” This school was not included in the survey. As a
first step, the committee consulted the institutions’ websites and identified the names of the six
programs. The names of each program and a link to the program’s website are listed at the
conclusion of this summary.1
In the case of biology, 87 units were identified. Biology was the most complicated, since
it is an evolving discipline. Biology “departments,” as thought of in the traditional sense and
possessing initial decision making authority for hiring, tenure and promotions, are called by a
variety of names. They are often at least minimally interdisciplinary among the biological
sciences, so some units included biochemistry or biophysics; in other cases, the units were
subsets of the biological sciences. Departments of molecular and cellular biology are an
example of this latter case. In one instance, all the departments had been merged into a single
School and so this was included for that institution.
In chemistry, 87 departments were identified. The majority were departments of
chemistry, while a few were chemistry and biochemistry. In civil engineering, 69 departments
were identified. Often civil engineering was bundled with environmental engineering, and less
often with construction engineering, architectural engineering, or mechanical engineering. In
electrical engineering, 77 departments were identified. Electrical engineering departments often
included computer engineering. In mathematics, 86 departments were identified. One of the
remaining three institutions only offered mathematics as part of an undergraduate college, and so
1
Note that URLs may have changed between the preparation and release of this report.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 201
APPENDIXES
201
was excluded. In a few instances, mathematics departments also included statistics. In one case,
a joint mathematics and computer science department was included. Finally, in physics, 86
departments were identified. One of the remaining three institutions only offered physics as part
of an undergraduate college, and so was excluded. About half of the departments included
astronomy in the department.
The result of this was 492 departments. Initially, the committee’s goal was to examine a
sample of departments. After further reflection, however, the committee decided a census would
be more fruitful. Partly, this reflected a concern that there would be very few responses for
women. For example, the questionnaire asked how many faculty were hired in the past two
years. While many departments were hiring, few hires were women. To increase this latter
number, all departments received the sample. Second, the advantage of the census lies in being
able to make comparisons between disciplines, e.g., chemistry versus biology, for all Research I
institutions.
In all 417 departments responded to the questionnaire. This gives an overall response
rate of 85 percent, which is a respectable response. By discipline, electrical engineering had the
lowest response rate, while physics had the highest. One might speculate that the fact that AIP
sent the survey, and was familiar with physics departments from other survey projects, might
have contributed to the higher return for physics departments.
Discipline Responded Sample Percent
Biological sciences 76 87 87
Chemistry 76 87 87
Civil Engineering 55 69 80
Electrical Engineering 59 77 77
Mathematics 74 86 86
Physics 77 86 90
To generate the faculty sample, the committee collected faculty rosters, for assistant,
associate, and full professors, at each of the 492 departments. This was done by consulting each
department’s website for a faculty list. Second, the committee identified the assistant, associate,
and full professors in the department. This step was more complex. The committee started with
the faculty roster on the individual institution’s departmental websites. If it identified these three
types of faculty, then those faculty members’ names were entered into a spreadsheet. If the
website did not identify faculty members’ ranks, then the committee turned to university
catalogues. In the event that this failed (because catalogues were not available on line), the
committee examined individual faculty members’ websites. The following faculty were not
included: lecturers, instructors, emeriti professors, research professors, adjunct faculty, visiting
faculty, and courtesy appointments. In addition, jointly appointed faculty, where the department
in question was the secondary appointment, were not included. Thus, an associate professor of
chemistry with a joint appointment in biology, would be counted in chemistry, but not in
biology. This process resulted in a final tally of approximately 16,400 faculty.
There are obvious, potential limitations to this approach. Specifically, departmental
roster websites and college catalogues may be out of date. Recently hired faculty may not have
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 202
APPENDIXES
202
been added to websites, while faculty who have left positions might not have been removed.
Faculty may have received promotions, that have yet to be reflected on departmental websites.
As a result, it is likely that a few, professorial faculty will be missed or misplaced.
Third, the committee identified the gender of each faculty member. This was done
primarily by relying on faculty names and photographs on departmental roster websites. Where
there was some question as to the faculty member’s gender, internet research was attempted, and
failing that, the department was called. The results of these efforts are captured in the following
table:
Population of Faculty in Six Disciplines at Research I Institutions.
Associate Assistant
Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total
Biology Male 1222 481 427 2130
Female 262 176 199 637
Total 2767
Chemistry Male 1513 331 408 2252
Female 150 72 101 323
Total 2575
Civil Engineering Male 787 371 302 1460
Female 57 50 78 185
Total 1645
Electrical Engineering Male 1579 575 531 2685
Female 79 76 70 225
Total 2910
Mathematics Male 2153 565 445 3163
Female 151 76 102 329
Total 3492
Physics Male 1994 413 407 2814
Female 119 49 67 235
Total 3049
Total 10066 3235 3137 16438
The committee then took a systematic sample of 50 faculty per gender, rank, and field.
Fowler (1993) describes the general procedure: “When drawing a systematic sample from a list,
the researcher first determines the number of entries on the list and the number of elements from
the list that are to be selected. Dividing the latter by the former will produce a fraction. Thus, if
there are 8,500 people on a list and a sample of 100 is required, 1/85 of the list (i.e., 1 out of
every 85 persons) is to be included in the sample. In order to select a systematic sample, a start
point is designated by choosing a random number from 1 to 85. The randomized start ensures
that it is a chance selection process. Given that start, the researcher proceeds to take every 85th
person on the list.” In some cases, because there are so few women in a particular field at a
particular rank, all were selected.2
2
The sample was sent to the contractor. Once it was confirmed to have reached the contractor, the original file was
deleted. Neither the committee nor the National Academies would know the names of potential respondents to the
faculty survey.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 203
APPENDIXES
203
Pre-notice letters were sent to deans/provosts and to department chairs to alert them to the
forthcoming questionnaires and also to ask for their assistance and encouragement in filling out
the form. Anecdotally, feedback from the administration was positive and encouraging. The
departmental census was offered as both a mail-based and web-based questionnaire. The
departmental questionnaire was mailed in November, 2004. A series of follow-ups was
undertaken.
The faculty questionnaire was designed as a web-based survey, although some
respondents requested a hard copy from the contractor. Faculty received an e-mail request to fill
out the survey along with a link to the survey, hosted on the contractor’s server.3 Faculty
received multiple e-mail follow ups.
Some faculty had to be removed or re-classified for various reasons. These included:
accidental duplication of a faculty member in the sample, faculty member was deceased,
information regarding faculty member (i.e. rank) was incorrect, faculty member was no longer at
the institution (and had not moved to another Research I institution). The most frequent problem
was that the data on the departmental websites was incorrect; usually out of date. The final
sample involved 1834 individuals:
Final Sample, including respondents, non-respondents, refusals, removals
Associate Assistant
Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total
Biology Male 59 53 42 154
Female 58 55 44 157
Total 311
Chemistry Male 64 49 43 156
Female 48 50 44 142
Total 298
Civil Engineering Male 61 55 36 152
Female 44 56 56 156
Total 308
Electrical Engineering Male 51 54 51 156
Female 53 50 45 148
Total 304
Mathematics Male 69 43 43 155
Female 53 46 44 143
Total 298
Physics Male 61 42 50 153
Female 58 48 56 162
Total 315
Total 679 601 554 1834
3
Fortunately, almost all e-mails were correct. “Bounce backs,” or non-working e-mails were corrected. It is
possible, though, that the wrong e-mail was collected and used, but that the contractor was not aware that this was a
incorrect e-mail and the respondent was never contacted.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 204
APPENDIXES
204
Of these 1834 individuals, 91 had to be removed from the sample, because they should
not have been included in the population (e.g. were deceased, no longer at a Research I
institution or not one of the three professorial ranks). 41 men and 50 women or 24 professors, 29
associate professors, and 38 assistant professors were removed.
Individuals removed from sample
Associate Assistant
Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total
Biology Male 2 5 1 8
Female 1 3 8 12
Total 20
Chemistry Male 1 2 1 4
Female 1 1 4 6
Total 10
Civil Engineering Male 1 3 2 6
Female 1 1 0 2
Total 8
Electrical Engineering Male 0 0 0 0
Female 2 3 2 7
Total 7
Mathematics Male 5 4 8 17
Female 4 2 7 13
Total 30
Physics Male 0 2 4 6
Female 6 3 1 10
Total 16
Total 24 29 38 91
1743 individuals made up the corrected sample. Of these 1347 responded to the questionnaire.
1278 filled out the survey, while 69 individuals responded by refusing to complete the survey.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 205
APPENDIXES
205
Respondents (including those who responded by refusing)
Associate Assistant
Department Gender Professor Professor Professor Total
Biology Male 46 33 34 113
Female 49 44 31 124
Total 237
Chemistry Male 51 34 32 117
Female 39 41 32 112
Total 229
Civil Engineering Male 40 38 26 104
Female 31 48 48 127
Total 231
Electrical Engineering Male 35 31 42 108
Female 40 39 31 110
Total 218
Mathematics Male 44 25 25 94
Female 35 36 27 98
Total 192
Physics Male 50 34 30 114
Female 41 34 51 126
Total 240
Total 501 437 409 1347
Non-respondents
Associate Assistant
Professor Professor
Department Gender Professor Total
Biology Male 11 15 7 33
Female 8 8 5 21
Total 54
Chemistry Male 12 13 10 35
Female 8 8 8 24
Total 59
Civil Engineering Male 20 14 8 42
Female 12 7 8 27
Total 69
Electrical Engineering Male 16 23 9 48
Female 11 8 12 31
Total 79
Mathematics Male 20 14 10 44
Female 14 8 10 32
Total 76
Physics Male 11 6 16 33
Female 11 11 4 26
Total 59
Total 154 135 107 396
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 206
APPENDIXES
206
To conclude:
• 1834 individuals comprised the sample
• 1743 individuals comprised the corrected sample (excludes removals)
• 1347 individuals responded (includes refusals)
• 1278 individuals provided some data
• 396 individuals did not respond
The response rate for the survey (number of completed questionnaires divided by number of
valid sample elements) is 1278/1743 or 73 percent.
Immediately following this text are the list of 492 departments surveyed, the departmental
questionnaire, and the faculty questionnaire.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
