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 (AIP) 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’ Web sites and identified the names of the six programs. The names of each program and a link to the program’s Web site are listed at the conclusion of this summary.[98]

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 it 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 it 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 2 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 Web site 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 Web sites. If it identified these three types of faculty, then those faculty members’ names were entered into a spreadsheet. If the Web site 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’ Web sites.

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 Web sites and college catalogues may be out of date. Recently hired faculty may not have been added to Web sites, while faculty who have left posi­tions might not have been removed. Faculty may have received promotions that have yet to be reflected on departmental Web sites. 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 Web sites. 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

Male

787

371

302

1460

engineering

Female

57

50

78

185

Total

1645

Electrical

Male

1579

575

531

2685

engineering

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.[99]

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.[100] 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, and 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 Web sites was incorrect; usually out of date. The final sample involved 1,834 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

Male

61

55

36

152

engineering

Female

44

56

56

156

Total

308

Electrical

Male

51

54

51

156

engineering

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

Of these 1,834 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). Overall, 41 men and 50 women or 24 professors, 29 associate professors, and 38 assistant professors were removed.

Individuals Removed from Sample

Department

Gender

Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

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

Male

1

3

2

6

engineering

Female

1

1

0

2

Total

8

Electrical

Male

0

0

0

0

engineering

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

Approximately, 1,743 individuals made up the corrected sample. Of these 1,347 responded to the questionnaire. Additionally, 1,278 filled out the survey, while 69 individuals responded by refusing to complete the survey.

Respondents (Including Those Who Responded by Refusing)

Department

Gender

Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

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

Male

40

38

26

104

engineering

Female

31

48

48

127

Total

231

Electrical

Male

35

31

42

108

engineering

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

Department

Gender

Professor

Associate

Professor

Assistant

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

Male

20

14

8

42

engineering

Female

12

7

8

27

Total

69

Electrical

Male

16

23

9

48

engineering

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

To conclude:

• 1,834 individuals comprised the sample.

• 1,743 individuals comprised the corrected sample (excludes removals).

• 1,347 individuals responded (includes refusals).

• 1,278 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 1,278/1,743 or 73 percent.

Immediately following this text are the list of 492 departments surveyed, the departmental questionnaire, and the faculty questionnaire.

Leave a reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>