As described earlier, 2,624 individuals received Faculty Work-Life Study questionnaires: all University of Michigan-Ann Arbor faculty who held at least half-time instructional appointments; who had been at the U-M for at least one year; and who were either tenured, in tenure-track appointments, clinical faculty, or lecturers. We used three different questionnaires for this study: one for lecturers and clinical faculty; a second for tenure-track assistant professors; and a third for tenured associate and full professors. The three questionnaires were identical in over 90% of their content, all of them addressing the respondents? experiences and perceptions of the work environment at U-M. The differences among the three questionnaires reflected the unique situation of each group. For example, the matter of achieving tenure was not relevant for lecturers and clinical faculty and was quite different for pre-tenure assistant professors and tenured associate and full professors.
On a separate one-page questionnaire, faculty supplied personal information about their backgrounds--their highest degree, the institution at which they earned their highest degree, their age, gender, race, citizenship, number of years they have been at U-M, and other related data. We collected and coded the demographic data separately. In order to conduct analyses, we later merged the demographic and other data without specific characteristics that would reveal faculty identities.
Responses to our twelve-page survey provided extensive and rich data. Some of the question sets came from an earlier University of Michigan national survey of faculty (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1989) that showed high test-retest reliabilities. This prior survey?s reliability gives us confidence in the data, yielding information we can trust to be representative of faculty members? perceptions of this work place.
The number of overall respondents was 1,167, a response rate of 44%. Tables A.1 and A.2 display the percentage of respondents for all faculty and for tenured and nontenured faculty by gender, race, rank and academic area. The response rates for women and ethnic minority groups are in keeping with other studies: women tend to respond at a proportionately higher rate than men, and people of color tend to respond at a lower rate than whites.
As have other researchers, we faced some questions about whether and how to aggregate data from faculty of color. Studies of academics typically include too few faculty of color to conduct sub-analyses that might be expected to show significant differences among non-white racial groups and at the same time maintain confidentiality. As a result, researchers often aggregate the faculty of color groups and treat the members as if all were the same--that is, holding similar values, goals, aspirations, abilities, satisfactions, and perceptions of the work environment. Clearly this is not the case, for great variations exist among members of a group as well as between groups.
For our study, we analyzed a range of responses from the various ethnic and racial groups to determine if they replied significantly differently. (Because there were only five Native American respondents, we were unable to undertake separate analyses for this group.) After extensive comparisons, we found that responses from African-Americans and Latinos/as were strikingly similar. Throughout our data analyses, we occasionally found differences between the responses of Asian/Asian-American and other faculty of color. Because these differences were small, we chose, for the most part, not to analyze Asian/Asian-Americans separately from other faculty of color. However, we did separate Asian/Asian-American responses from those of other faculty of color in our gender analyses of the units? climates and overall career satisfaction. We did so primarily to show the pattern of the responses from Asian/Asian-American and other women of color as consistently at the low end of the climate and satisfaction scales, white males at the high end, and white women, Asian/Asian-American and other men of color in between.
We compared information from the University personnel database with our collected survey data. An oft-voiced concern with this type of research is that those who respond are more likely to be those with complaints to register. However, t-tests we conducted between respondents and non-respondents, when controlled by rank, showed no significant differences in salary?a common proxy for career satisfaction and achievement. T-tests also showed no significant differences between respondents and non-respondents by career age and biological age.
Most of the data in this report are in the form of percentages for different groups derived from cross tabulations. In addition, we used t-tests and ANOVAS to examine mean differences where appropriate.
The ethics of confidentiality limit what we include in the report, since analyzing by rank, gender, race/ethnicity, and academic division would occasionally produce cells containing but a single member. In some cases, such small numbers prevented us from analyzing the data by one or more of the groups. For instance, the data on research productivity over a two-year period consisted of limited numbers of women in the physical sciences and small numbers of women respondents in the humanities and fine arts, as well as limited numbers of faculty of color in all of the disciplinary divisions. Where these numbers were insufficient, we did not include data for those groups in the tables, nor did we report significant differences.
In the case of questions about faculty members? spouses/partners and children, limited responses were a problem. However, because these questions were not central to issues of faculty academic careers, we report the data as general information. In some instances, these small numbers prevented us from testing the levels of significance within groups.
The remainder of this report contains tables and figures illustrating the findings for tenured and tenure-track faculty responses to all the survey items. The information is generally organized as it was in Part II, with the addition of responses to inquiries not included in the highlights of this report.
All tables on this page are downloadable PDF files, requiring Adobe Acrobat Reader . If you do not already have Acrobat Reader installed, you can download it for free from Adobe.
The findings are arranged in the following order:
A. U-M Faculty and Respondents: Who They Are
B. Workload and Productivity
C. Faculty Self-Assessments
D. Organizational Structures, Policies, and Resources
E. Institutional and Unit Climate
F. Career Satisfaction and Retention
G. Family Work-Life Issues
Within the tables, we first present information about all tenured and tenure-track faculty. We then present the data by rank; by gender, controlling for rank; by race, controlling for rank; and by division. Significant differences are designated by bold type and a single asterisk. In every case, significance levels are at least p ( .05. Because we rounded percentages for each category, totals will not always equal one hundred. Furthermore, where we report means, the tables also include standard deviations. Note that the range of standard deviations for research productivity is extremely large. This large range is similar to findings from other studies of faculty productivity (i.e., Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995). The large standard deviations stem from the fact that, even at research universities where research output is expected and emphasized, a relatively small number of faculty produce prodigiously and others produce less (Creamer, 1998).
On all of the following tables and figures, statistical significance is noted with an asterisk and bold-faced type. Where appropriate, standard deviations are listed in parentheses. Except where otherwise noted, "faculty" refers to tenured and tenure-track faculty. In most instances, divisional analyses do not include Medical School faculty.
Table A.1a All Faculty Respondents
Table A.1b Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Respondents
Table A.1c Number of Faculty Respondents - Rank by Gender by Race
Table A.1d Number of Faculty Respondents - Rank by Gender by Division
Table A.1e Comparisons of Respondents and Non-Respondents
Table A.2 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Table
Table A.2 part 2
Table B.3a Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported Working Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - All Faculty by Rank
Table B.3b Percentage of Hours that Faculty Perceived their Units Wanted Them to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - All Faculty by Rank
Table B.3c Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported They Preferred to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - All Faculty by Rank
Table B.3d Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported Working Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Table B.3e Percentage of Hours that Faculty Perceived their Units Wanted Them to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Table B.3f Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported They Preferred to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles
Table B.3g Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported Working Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Table B.3h Percentage of Hours that Faculty Perceived their Units Wanted Them to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Table B.3i Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported They Preferred to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Table B.3j Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported Working Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Professors by Gender and Rank
Table B.3k Percentage of Hours that Faculty Perceived their Units Wanted Them to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Professors by Gender and Race
Table B.3l Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported They Preferred to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - Professors by Gender and Race
Table B.3m Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported They Worked Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - All Faculty by Division
Table B.3n Percentage of Hours that Faculty Perceived their Units Wanted Them to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - All Faculty by Division
Table B.3o Percentage of Hours that Faculty Reported They Preferred to Work Per Week in Seven Primary Academic Roles - All Faculty by Division
Table B.4a Perceptions of Workload - All Faculty and by Rank
Table B.4b Perceptions of Workload - Rank by Gender
Table B.4c Perceptions of Workload - Rank by Race
Table B.4d Perceptions of Workload - All Faculty by Division
Table B.5a Number of Times Faculty Reported Doing Certain Scholarly Activities in the Last Two Years - All Faculty and by Division (Means)
Table B.5b Number of Times Faculty Reported Doing Certain Scholarly Activities in the Last Two Years - All Faculty and by Division (Percentage)
Table B5b part 2
Table B.5c Number of Times Faculty Reported Doing Certain Scholarly Activities in the Last Two Years - Division by Rank (Means)
Table B.5d Number of Times Faculty Reported Doing Certain Scholarly Activities in the Last Two Years - Division by Rank (Percentage)
Table B.5e Number of Times Biological/Health Sciences Faculty Reported Doing Certain Scholarly Activities in the Last Two Years - Rank by Gender
Table B.5f Number of Times Social Sciences Faculty Reported Doing Certain Scholarly Activities in the Last Two Years - Rank by Gender
Table B.6a Frequency of Faculty Contact with Students - All Faculty and by Rank
Table B.6b Frequency of Faculty Contact with Students - Rank by Gender
Table B.6c Frequency of Faculty Contact with Students - Rank by Race
Table B.6d Frequency of Faculty Contact with Students - All Faculty by Division
Table C.1a Perceptions of Influence - All Faculty and by Rank
Table C.1b Perceptions of Influence - Rank by Gender
Table C.1c Perceptions of Influence - Rank by Race
Table C.1d Perceptions of Influence - All Faculty by Division
Table C.2a Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - All Faculty
Table C.2b Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - All Faculty by Rank
Table C.2c Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - Assistant Professors by Gender
Table C.2d Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - Associate Professors by Gender
Table C.2e Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - Professors by Gender
Table C2f Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - Assistant Professors by Race
Table C.2g Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - Associate Professors by Race
Table C.2h Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - Professors by Race
Table C.2i Faculty Members' Perceptions of the Characteristics of Valued Faculty Compared to Their Own Characteristics - All Faculty by Division
Table C.3a Perceptions of Salary - All Faculty and by Rank
Table C.3b Perceptions of Salary - Rank by Gender
Table C.3c Perceptions of Salary - Rank by Race
Table C.3d Perceptions of Salary - All Faculty by Division
Table D.1a Perceptions of the Tenure Review Process Within Units - All Faculty and by Rank
Table D.1b Perceptions of the Tenure Review Process Within Units - Rank by Gender
Table D.1c Perceptions of the Tenure Review Process Within Units - Rank by Race
Table D.1d Perceptions of the Tenure Review Process Within Units - All Faculty by Division
Table D.2a Assistant Professors' Responses to Units' Tenure Review Policies - All Assistant Professors and by Gender and Race
Table D.2b Assistant Professors' Responses to Units' Tenure Review Policies - Assistant Professors by Division
Table D.3a Perceptions of Adequacy of Resources - All Faculty and by Rank
Table D.3b Perceptions of Adequacy of Resources - Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Table D.3c Perceptions of Adequacy of Resources - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Table D.3d Perceptions of Adequacy of Resources - Professors by Gender and Race
Table D.3e Perceptions of Adequacy of Resources - All Faculty by Division
Table D.4a Views on Resources and Organizational Barriers - All Faculty and by Rank
Table D.4b Views on Resources and Organizational Barriers - Rank by Gender
Table D.4c Views on Resources and Organizational Barriers - Rank by Race
Table D.4d Views on Resources and Organizational Barriers - All Faculty by Division
Table D.5a Research Grants - All Faculty and by Rank
Table D.5b Research Grants - Rank by Gender
Table D.5c Research Grants - Rank by Race
Table D.5d Research Grants - All Faculty by Division
Table D.6a Assistant Professors' Special Arrangements - All Assistant Professors and by Gender and Race
Table D.6b Assistant Professors' Special Arrangements - All Assistant Professors by Division
Table E.1a Perceptions of Climate Within Units - All Faculty and by Rank
Table E.1b Perceptions of Climate Within Units - Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Table E.1c Perceptions of Climate Within Units - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Table E.1d Perceptions of Climate Within Units - Professors by Gender and Race
Table E.1e Perceptions of Climate Within Units - All Faculty by Division
Table E.1f Perceptions of Climate Within Units - All Faculty by Gender by Race
Table E.2a Perceptions of Interactions with Colleagues in Unit - All Faculty and by Rank
Table E.2b Perceptions of Interactions with Colleagues in Unit - Rank by Gender
Table E.2c Perceptions of Interactions with Colleagues in Unit - Rank by Race
Table E.2d Perceptions of Interactions with Colleagues in Unit - All Faculty by Division
Table E.3a Perceptions of Relationships with Colleagues in Unit - All Faculty and by Rank
Table E.3b Perceptions of Relationships with Colleagues in Unit - Rank by Gender
Table E.3c Perceptions of Relationships with Colleagues in Unit - Rank by Race
Table E.3d Perceptions of Relationships with Colleagues in Unit - All Faculty by Division
Table E.4a Assistant Professors' Experiences with Mentorship - All Assistant Professors and by Gender and Race
Table E.4b Assistant Professors' Experiences with Mentorship - All Assistant Professors by Division
Table E.5a Assistant Professors' Experiences with Assistance from Senior Faculty - All Assistant Professors and by Gender and Race
Table E.5b Assistant Professors' Experiences with Assistance from Senior Faculty - All Assistant Professors by Division
Table E.6a Reported Experiences of Discrimination and Harassment - All Faculty and by Rank
Table E.6b Reported Experiences of Discrimination and Harassment - Rank by Gender
Table E.6c Reported Experiences of Discrimination and Harassment - Rank by Race
Table E.6d Reported Experiences of Discrimination and Harassment - All Faculty by Division
Table E.7a Reported Experiences of Disparaging Remarks - All Faculty and by Rank
Table E.7b Reported Experiences of Disparaging Remarks - Assistant Professors by Gender and Rac
Table E.7c Reported Experiences of Disparaging Remarks - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Table E.7d Reported Experiences of Disparaging Remarks - Professors by Gender and Race
Table E.7e Reported Experiences of Disparaging Remarks - All Faculty by Division
Table E.8a Social Contacts with Colleagues - All Faculty and by Rank
Table E.8b Social Contacts with Colleagues - Rank by Gender
Table E.8c Social Contacts with Colleagues - Rank by Race
Table E.8d Social Contacts with Colleagues - All Faculty by Division
Table E.9a Social Activities with Colleagues - All Faculty and by Rank
Table E.9b Social Activities with Colleagues - Rank by Gender
Table E.9c Social Activities with Colleagues - Rank by Race
Table E.9d Social Activities with Colleagues - All Faculty by Division
Table F.3a Satisfaction with Dimensions of Professional Development - All Faculty and by Rank
Table F.3b Satisfaction with Dimensions of Professional Development - Rank by Gender
Table F.3c Satisfaction with Dimensions of Professional Development - Rank by Race
Table F.3d Satisfaction with Dimensions of Professional Development - All Faculty by Division
Table F.4a Important Objectives for Career Satisfaction - All Faculty and by Rank
Table F.4b Important Objectives for Career Satisfaction - Rank by Gender
Table F.4c Important Objectives for Career Satisfaction - Rank by Race
Table F.4d Important Objectives for Career Satisfaction - All Faculty by Division
Table F.5a Factors that Would Make a Move from U-M Attractive - All Faculty and by Rank
Table F.5b Factors that Would Make a Move from U-M Attractive - Rank by Gender
Table F.5c Factors that Would Make a Move from U-M Attractive - Rank by Race
Table F.5d Factors that Would Make a Move from U-M Attractive - All Faculty by Division
Table F.6a Number of Reported Outside Job Inquiries, Offers, and Applications - All Faculty and By Rank
Table F.6b Number of Reported Outside Job Inquiries, Offers, and Applications - Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Table F.6c Number of Reported Outside Job Inquiries, Offers, and Applications - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Table F.6d Number of Reported Outside Job Inquiries, Offers, and Applications - Professors by Gender and Race
Table F.6e Number of Reported Outside Job Inquiries, Offers, and Applications - All Faculty by Division
Table G.1a Faculty with Partners Employed at U-M - All Faculty and by Rank
Table G.1b Faculty with Partners Employed at U-M - All Faculty by Gender and Race
Table G.2a Partners' Employment Status - All Faculty and by Rank
Table G.2b Partners' Employment Status - Rank by Gender
Table G.2c Partners' Employment Status - Rank by Race
Table G.3a Faculty with Children - All Faculty and by Rank
Table G.3b Faculty with Children - Rank by Gender
Table G.3c Faculty with Children - Rank by Race
Table G.4 Use of Institutional Family Leave Policies - All Faculty
Table G.5 Comparison of Responses to Satisfaction with Professional Development between Faculty with and without Children Living at Home
Table G.6a Comparisons of Journal Publication Rates, Over a Two-Year Period, between Faculty with and without Children Living at Home - All Faculty by Rank
Table G.6b Comparisons of Journal Publication Rates, Over a Two-Year Period, between Faculty with and without Children Living at Home - All Females by Rank
Table G.6c Comparisons of Journal Publication Rates, Over a Two-Year Period, between Faculty with and without Children Living at Home - All Males by Rank
Figure B.1a Number of Hours Worked per Week - All Faculty by Division by Rank
Figure B.1b Number of Hours Worked per Week - All Faculty and by Gender and Race
Figure B.1c Number of Hours Worked per Week - All Faculty and by Rank
Figure B.1d Number of Hours Worked per Week - Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Figure B.1e Number of Hours Worked per Week - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Figure B.1f Number of Hours Worked per Week - Professors by Gender and Race
Figure B.2 Number of Credit Hours Taught (Academic Year) - All Faculty by Rank, Gender by Rank, and Race by Rank
Figure F.1a Overall Satisfaction with Position - All Faculty and by Rank
Figure F.1b Overall Satisfaction with Position - Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Figure F.1c Overall Satisfaction with Position - Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Figure F.1d Overall Satisfaction with Position - Professors by Gender and Race
Figure F.1e Overall Satisfaction with Position - All Faculty by Division
Figure F.1f Overall Satisfaction with Position - All Faculty by Race by Gender
Figure F.2a If you had to decide all over again whether to be a faculty member at U-M, what would you decide? All Faculty and by Rank
Figure F.2b If you had to decide all over again whether to be a faculty member at U-M, what would you decide? Assistant Professors by Gender and Race
Figure F.2c If you had to decide all over again whether to be a faculty member at U-M, what would you decide? Associate Professors by Gender and Race
Figure F.2d If you had to decide all over again whether to be a faculty member at U-M, what would you decide? Professors by Gender and Race
Figure F.2e If you had to decide all over again whether to be a faculty member at U-M, what would you decide? All Faculty by Division
There were 2,999 names in the original database provided by the University?s personnel office. Two hundred-eighty five were excluded because they were no longer employed at the University at the time the survey was distributed. In addition, 90 faculty members were excluded because they were away on leave and unavailable to receive and/or respond to the survey in a timely manner. During the period of survey development, we considered drawing a sample from the faculty population; however, there were problems associated with the non-randomness of unit size and skewed distribution of women and faculty of color across units. After consulting with the Director of the Survey Research Center of ISR, we decided on the census approach of surveying all faculty. Employing this method was important for two reasons: (1) the skewed distributions of subgroups in many units (e.g., women in nursing and men in engineering) would limit analyses; and (2) surveying all faculty members meant that everyone could have a voice in reporting what working in her or his unit is like. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people of color are skeptical of how their personal information will be used once collected, perhaps due to the history of discrimination in the U.S. and fear that their anonymity will not be assured due to their small numbers. Women, on the other hand, appear to be eager to voice their experiences and perceptions in such studies, as indicated by their higher rate of participation compared to men. Also, humanities faculty tend to have less confidence in survey data and respond at a lower rate.
CEW Research
From its inception, CEW has included research among its activities, exploring the lives of women, issues related to women's educational and employment options, and leadership. Through its research, CEW enriches our understanding of gender, improves practice and influences on policy development. CEW’s research program covers the adjacent areas of interest.
Center for the
Education of
Women
University of
Michigan
330 E. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI
48103
734.764.6005