1 / 11

Mary Frank Fox School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

Mary Frank Fox School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology WEPAN 2006 National Conference Plenary Session on “Advancing Women in Technical Fields Within Higher Education” June 2006

tonya
Download Presentation

Mary Frank Fox School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mary Frank Fox School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology WEPAN 2006 National Conference Plenary Session on “Advancing Women in Technical Fields Within Higher Education” June 2006 Presentation draws upon: Mary Frank Fox and Carol Colatrella.“Participation, Performance, and Advancement of Academic Women in Science and Engineering.” Journal of Technology Transfer (Issue on Women in Science) 31(2006): 377-386. PARTICIPATION, PERFORMANCE, AND ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: What is at Issue and Why

  2. A. These are Organizational Issues  Why 1. Women in science/engineering are a select group. 2. Participation/performance are not a simple function of individual characteristics. 3. Participation/performance reflect and are affected by features of organizational contexts in which people work. I. Participation, Performance, and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering

  3. B. Organizational Settings are Particularly Important in Science/Engineering Fields  Why C. Aims: Portray women faculty’s reported experiences of participation, performance and advancement. Show implications for practices and policies to support advancement of women in universities.

  4. A. Interviewees Subjects identified with aim for distribution across fields, ranks, and racial/ethnic groups Data collected in semi-structured interviews in key areas – as part of Georgia Tech ADVANCE Research Program in 2004 – in collaboration with Dr. Carol Colatrella II. Method Requests for Interviews = 24 Positive Response = 20 (85%)

  5. C. Key areas: Participation: importance of having an academic career, and involvement in decision making. Performance: meanings of “success” and “satisfaction.” Advancement: criteria for promotion, application of criteria, and critical transitions.

  6. A. Participation 1. What are the important aspects of having an academic career? “Freedom and autonomy” “Interaction with students” 2. Involvement in decision making The majority (65%) report that faculty are “not at all” or only slightly” involved. Yet faculty report that they are “satisfied” with their current level of involvement. Why “satisfied”? Complicated picture: decision-making is an area reported to be fraught with stress and/or conflict. III. Focal Findings

  7. B. Performance: Success and satisfaction 1. Subjective meanings of success “Recognition and impact of research” “Positive impact on students” 2. Satisfaction with academic career A vast (89%) majority of these faculty women report being “moderately” or “very satisfied” with their academic careers. Definition of “success” and areas of “satisfaction” tend to converge.

  8. C. Advancement: Critical transitions Advancement from assistant to associate: what is needed? Consensus on: triad of attainments needed. 2. Advancement to associate professor: how are standards applied? 75% believe that application of the standard “varies with the candidate” – criteria “not consistently applied.”

  9. 3. Advancement from associate to full: what is needed? Definition of “what counts” is less certain and less specific. 4. Advancement to full professor: how are the standards applied? 95% believe that criteria for promotion “vary with the person” or that “they don’t know if it varies.” In promotion to full professor, compared to promotion to associate professor, the attributes are reported to be more subjective, less known, and less understood.

  10. 5. “Personal factors” in advancement 95% of the respondents—across ranks and fields—said, “yes” personal factors matter in advancement. Further, when asked if it is “risky” to reveal or discuss the role of personal factors in advancement, 90% answered “yes.”

  11. IV. Implications for Practice and Policy A. Autonomy in research and teaching and impact upon students are cherished as the most important aspects of having academic careers, and as bases of personal meanings of success and satisfaction. • At odds: reports of “risks” of talking about personal factors governing advancement. B. Clear, written, and transparent guidelines for advancement needed. C. Better pathways for significant participation and involve-ment—with or without administrative appointments—need to be structured.  Shaping organizational practices/policies will help enhance the participation, performance, and advancement of women—and men—faculty.

More Related