1. ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS OF DEPARTMENTS AND DOCTORAL DEGREES AWARDED TO WOMEN IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Mary Frank Fox School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Gender Diversity in Computing Workshop on Graduate Women’s Recruitment & Retention Sponsored by Computing Research Association and National Science Foundation October 8, 2006

2. I. Academic Departments and Doctoral Degrees Awarded to Women A.Focus upon departments  Why 1. Autonomy in graduate education 2. Decentralization within universities 3. Social complexity of environments: participation and performance affected by features of organizational context

3. B. Key Questions: 1.What are the characteristics of departments that have been more compared to less successful in proportions of doctoral degrees awarded to women? 2.Do departments that have consistently high, or improved, proportions have different organizational features than those with consistently low proportions? 3. Do “high” or “improved” departments have features that set them apart in: attention to issues of participation and performance conceptions about what constitutes a “good environment” for graduate study clarity of guidelines for study standards about sufficient work for award of a Ph.D.

4. II. Data and Method Site visits to 22 of the (61) departments of chemistry, computer science, electrical engineering, and physics departments that were 1) consistently low, 2) consistently high, and 3) most improved in doctoral degrees awarded to women over a 17-year (1974-1990) period. Table 1. Site Visits to Departments, by Departmental Category and Departmental Field Departmental Category Departmental Field LowHighImproved Chemistry 123 Computer Science 312 Electrical Engineering 023 Physics 212 Total (22 departments) 6610

5. III. Focal Findings A. History of Leadership on participation/performance of women  In improved departments, administrative priority – “issues are addressed.” B. Views about “Good Environment” 1. In high and improved categories, departmental chairs and faculty underscore the importance of strong communication and interaction among faculty and students. 2. In improved departments, respondents believe that for women, a good environment had more or heightened elements of what they thought be good for men.  Chairs, graduate directors, and faculty thought that women needed not a different but an “enhanced environment.”

6. C.Written Guidelines  Why important: associated with equity. 1. Departments in chemistry and computer science were more likely to have written guidelines for graduate study. 2. In chemistry and computer science departments, those in the improved and high category were more likely to have written or more explicit guidelines than those in the low. D.Sufficiency of Work for Doctoral Degree Assessment of “sufficiency” is highly decentralized – a judgment, primarily of the research advisor.  Departments do little to routinize the decision.

7. IV. Conclusions A. Departments that are high or improved tend to have organizational features that set them apart: Past or ongoing leadership on issues of participation/performance Greater consideration to what constitutes a “good environment” for graduate study Written guidelines for graduate study B. Across fields and departmental categories (low, high, improved), criteria for assessment of what constitutes “sufficient work” for the Ph.D. are highly decentralized – judgments left to individual advisors.

8. IV. Conclusions (continue) C. What are the implications?  Departments leave untouched the core of graduate education: the advisor-advisee relationship. In science and engineering, the decentralization is particularly strong – with implications for forging practices and policies.