close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
Retention Survey Report
Submitted March 22, 2004; corrections March 29, 2004
Presented to the Provost on May 28, 2004
Recruitment and Retention Subcommittee,
PACWC (2001/2-2003/4)
Randi Koeske, Ph.D., Chair
Nicole Constable, Ph.D.
Kim Needy, Ph.D.
Survey Timeline
Spring, 2003
May, 2003
July, 2003
August, 2003
October, 2003
January, 2004
February, 2004
March, 2004
May, 2004
Survey developed; sample identified
Survey e-mailed
Returns completed (42.9%)
Analyses, draft report completed
Progress report circulated
Draft report, Executive Summary
circulated and discussed
Subcommittee recommendations,
additional analyses/corrections suggested
Report/Summary approved by PACWC
Report/Summary presented to Provost
Sample
Target: faculty at all campuses who left between
2000-2002 (not Medical School) N=49
21 survey respondents (42.9%)
Demographic breakdown:
- 71.4% female
- 85.7% white
- 85.7% Oakland campus (2 from UPJ, 1 from UPG)
- 42.9% tenured, 100% in tenure stream
- 57.1% assistant, 9.5% associate, 33.3% full
professors
Primary Measures
26 ratings (5-point rating scales)
2 open-ended questions
Selected demographics (identities confidential)
Mean ratings and SDs
% of respondents giving rating ≥ 3
Comments coded into 90 themes, 10 categories
Top 5 Reasons for Leaving Pitt
Reason
Mean
SD
Attraction to other university or
department
Problems-deficiencies at Pitt or in
department
Intellectual community-collegiality
3.90
1.58
3.85
1.63
3.43
1.57
Working conditions
3.05
1.62
Opportunities for autonomy-growth
2.90
1.84
Ratings were made on 5-point scales: 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important
Interpretation
Professional issues most important
Compensation mattered, especially when seen as
– undervaluing or misuse
– part of mishandled priorities
– sign of indifference
Salary over time/retention package  lack of
perceived merit or commitment
Top 5 Reasons for Leaving Pitt
Reason
Attraction to other university or
department
Problems-deficiencies at Pitt or in
department
Intellectual community-collegiality
Percent ≥ 3
80.9%
80.0%
71.4%
Working conditions
63.2%
Salary-benefits
55.0%
Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important
Interpretation
Leaving resulted from a combination of factors
Considerable variability across individuals
Overall Equity-Relevant Ratings
Reason
Mean
SD
Equity for all relative to field
3.29
1.31
Equity for all within department
3.18
1.59
Importance of atmosphere
reason for leaving
for women as a
2.50
1.76
Importance of employment
as a reason for leaving
for spouse/partner
2.45
1.88
2.18
1.55
Importance of
leaving
salary for women as a reason for
Ratings 1 = not at all equitable to 5 = very equitable; 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important
Interpretation
Pitt seen as moderately equitable overall
Gender issues top-rated among diversity
concerns as reasons for leaving
- atmosphere for women
- employment opportunities for spouse/partner
- salary for women
Overall Equity-Relevant Ratings
Reason
Percent ≥ 3
Equity for all relative to field
76.4%
Equity for all within department
64.6%
Importance of
leaving
atmosphere for women as a reason for
Importance of employment
reason for leaving
Importance of
44.5%
for spouse/partner as a
40.0%
salary for women as a reason for leaving
35.3%
Percentages of 3 = moderately equitable to 5 = very equitable; 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important
Interpretation
Gender, race, sexual orientation, age, and
disability were not primary overall concerns
Gender was important to a subgroup of females
- overall gender comparisons
- exploratory analysis
- analysis of comments
Exploration - Comments
Comments helped to clarify ratings
–
–
–
–
–
male-only bathrooms
female-offensive behavior not addressed
administrative advancement less open to women
failure to address employment of spouse/partner (6 or 28.5%)
poor maternity leave options (1990, 1995)
Exploration – Gender Differences
Focus on equity ratings, diversity-related concerns as
reasons for leaving
– overall gender difference (p < .08): employment opportunities
for spouse or partner
– compared % of male and female respondents with ratings of
moderate to high importance (≥ 3)
– examined gender differences in patterns of response
Individual Ratings
Importance of
employment for spouse/partner as a reason for leaving
Mean
SD
Males
1.33
0.82
Females
2.93
2.02
Percent ≥ 3
Males
16.7%
Females
50.0%
Ratings 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important
Pattern of Ratings (Percent ≥ 3)
Males
Females
Perceived equity in department
Importance as reason for leaving
80.0%
Males
58.3%
Females
Problems/deficiencies in department
66.7%
85.7%
Conflict with individual(s)
33.3%
57.1%
Research support-funding
40.1%
57.1%
Employment opportunities – spouse/partner
16.7%
50.0%
Atmosphere for women
33.3%
46.7%
Respect for/centrality of expertise
33.3%
46.7%
Rating
Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important
Pattern of Ratings (Percent ≥ 3)
(continued)
Importance as reason for leaving
Males
Females
Salary for women
0%
42.8%
Mode of evaluation
0%
40.0%
Atmosphere for other diversity groups
0%
23.1%
Atmosphere for people of color
0%
21.3%
Salary for people of color
0%
20.0%
Salary for other diversity groups
0%
10.0%
Salary-benefits
83.3%
42.9%
Opportunities for promotion
66.7%
40.0%
Level of student ability-motivation
60.0%
26.7%
Percentages reflect those giving ratings of 3 = moderately important to 5 = very important
Interpretation
Male and female faculty differed in pattern of
response
All females did not express same concerns
More important among women:
– dual career issues
– issues related to equity and diversity
Satisfaction with Handling of Leave
Mean
SD
At the department level
3.00
1.45
At the Dean’s level
2.52
1.72
Percent ≥ 3
At the department level
63.2%
At the Dean’s level
42.8%
Ratings 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important
Comments
Top 3 areas in which comments were offered:
– department/school (52.7%)
– women’s issues (47.3%)
– attraction to offer elsewhere (42.2%)
Female faculty commented more often on
–
–
–
–
women’s issues
administration’s handling of departure
professional issues
salaries/benefits
Study Limitations
Importance of diversity concerns apart from
gender unknown
PACWC connection?
Larger samples, improved response rate,
analysis of comparable data over time
Conclusions
Faculty may explore other positions to “test waters”
“Window of opportunity” for retention
Diversity is a valuable institutional structure; differences not
always merely personal – pay attention/build climate
Attend to absolute salary level over time
Dual career accommodation and a positive atmosphere for
women  the retention of female faculty
Recommendations
Exit interviews and/or regular surveys
Address dual career needs and other climate issues for
women faculty; Action Plan with monitoring
Review salaries, salary increments, benefits, lab space,
support, etc. by group; assume proactive role
Work supportively with other efforts to improve status of
women, e.g., Senate Plenary on Women committee
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа