Mary Frank Fox Co-Principal Investigator Georgia Tech ADVANCE Conference March 2006 NSF ADVANCE Research Program

OUTLINE I.GT Advance Research Program II.GT Follow-Up Survey III.GT Follow-Up Findings and Implications IV.Conclusions Research Team

I. GT ADVANCE Research Program Research Components The GT ADVANCE Research Program is tied to GT’s “integrated institutional approach” to positive outcomes-and best practices-for faculty A.Survey of GT Faculty Perceptions, Needs, and Experiences 2002/2003 B.Follow-Up Interviews with GT Women Faculty 2004 Follow-Up Survey of GT Faculty 2005/2006 C.Survey of Peer Institutions 2003/2004 Reports online at:

II. GT Follow-Up Survey 2005/2006 Sampling Design: Faculty in Colleges of Computing, Engineering, Sciences, and Ivan Allen College:  All tenure and tenure-track women surveyed in 2002 who are still at GT, plus those who have entered GT since 2002  Stratified random sample of men surveyed in 2002 who are still at GT, plus a stratified random sample (25%) of those men who have entered since 2002 Response Rate 71.4% Aims:  Assess areas of change/stability since 2002 in key areas, including research, work environments, and clarity of evaluation  Assess:  Awareness of NSF Advance  Participation in NSF Advance  Perceptions of “increased administrative attention” to issues of faculty advancement

III. GT Follow-Up: Findings and Implications Findings of Areas of Change/Stability in 2005 Compared to 2002 Survey of GT Faculty RESEARCH EVALUATION WORK ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1. Frequency of Speaking about Research with Faculty in Unit, by Gender and Year. Research

Work Environment Figure 2. Ratings of Aspects of Position/Unit, by Gender and Year.

Figure 3. Mean levels of Characterizations of Home Unit, by Gender and Year. Work Environment

Clarity of Evaluation Figure 4. Reported Clarity of Criteria for Tenure and Promotion, by Gender and Year, and by College.

Reported awareness of and participation in GT’s ADVANCE Program and perception of increased administrative attention to faculty advancement

Figure 5. Level of Awareness of GT ADVANCE Initiatives/Activities, by Gender. Awareness

Figure 6. Level of Awareness of GT ADVANCE Initiatives/Activities, by Gender and College.

Figure 7. Level of Awareness of GT ADVANCE Initiatives/Activities, by Gender and College. Awareness

Participation Figure 8. Reported level of Participation in GT ADVANCE Initiative/Activities, past four years, by Gender.

Figure 9. Reported level of Participation in GT ADVANCE Initiative/Activities, past four years, by Gender and College. Participation

Figure 10. Reported level of Participation in GT ADVANCE Initiative/Activities, past four years, by Gender and College. Participation

Perception about Attention Figure 11. Perceived Extent of Increased Attention of GT Administrators to Faculty Advancement, by Gender.

Figure 12. Perceived Extent of Increased Attention of GT Administrators to Faculty Advancement, by Gender and College. Perception about Attention

IV. Conclusions 1.Just as organization is structured, so it can continue to be positively structured to support participation and performance of faculty. 2.Findings from ADVANCE Research Program suggest that positive transformation can be supported through diverse means, including: Access to exchange about research Climates in departments Clarity of criteria for evaluation Supportive work-family arrangements