1. Academic Work Environment Survey 2004 Barbara Silver, ADVANCE Program Director Presented at the ADVANCE National Conference, G-Tech, Atlanta, Georgia April 21, 2004 Evaluation Team: Lisa Harlow (Chair), Kate Webster, Lisa Bowleg, Barb Silver

2. Survey Components 2 primary components:  UMich, Utah State tapered to URI  Transtheoretical Model (TTM) staging measure Data collection components :  Employment data (appointment, tenure clock, resources, start-up)  Productivity data (teaching, service, leadership, publications, etc.)  Recognition, awards  Career satisfaction  Mentoring  Work Environment (& level of influence, gender, discrimination, dept. leader, relationships)  Demographics, including partner information  Work-family balance Readiness-to-change component (TTM):  How willing to engage in 4 key behaviors to promote women in science

3. Transtheoretical Model for Change Readiness-for-Change Staging Instrument Will validate new assessment measure Based on input from 4 focus groups Assess 4 key behaviors: willingness to... 1.Create opportunities for collaboration 2.Enhance competency through mentoring 3.Provide resources for doing research 4.Generate support through community

4. Survey and URI Initiatives Confirmation for need for proactive efforts Campus-wide effort  benefits to all Emphasis on work-family balance Provides readiness-for-change assessment on various levels (individual, department, college, university) Provides basis for TTM intervention strategies

5. Methods – Survey Development  Parsimony - Length vs. comprehensive  Topics supported by 4 focus groups  Reviewed by multiple sources  Targets research and tenure faculty Question: How to develop a comprehensive measure that is not too long?

6. Methods - Marketing Meetings with Council of Deans, Chairs, All-faculty meetings How effort is unique and why so valuable Pyramid of benefits Benefits to ALL faculty Warning about size and sensitive questions Emphasis on confidentiality, anonymity, careful reporting Financial incentives to departments! Letter of support from Provost mailed 1 week prior Questions: How to make survey relevant to: resistant/defensive faculty? busy faculty? Non-STEM faculty?

7. Methods - Dissemination 2 options – hard copy or web-based Distributed as booklet with return postcard and addressed envelope Hand delivered to dept. chairs Option of web-based version Individual follow-up emails planned Questions: How to ensure good response rate? When & how to distribute?

8. Methods – Data entry Dual entry – manual double entry and web download into SPSS WebSurveyer software Questions: How to define comparison groups? How to map individuals longitudinally?

9. Methods – Data analysis 1.Psychometric analyses to develop scales Factor analyses Internal consistency reliability 2.Group difference statistics Manovas: by gender, STEM vs. non-STEM, by dept? 3.Prediction/correlational model testing Multiple regression Logistical regression and/or SEM Outcome variables: work environment, satisfaction, etc. 4.Longitudinal analyses Examine measure across time @ dept. level Questions: How to track data longitudinally? How to best mainstream new data into institutional data collection?

10. Reporting Executive Summary distributed campus-wide Full general reports to:  all administrators, deans, chairs  selected locations  on request  online Nov. 5 Anniversary event  Virginia Valian  findings presented Question: How to report what to whom? How to disseminate honestly but graciously to ensure positive momentum?