preview of award 1209169 - annual project report annual... · preview of award 1209169 - annual...

7/2/13 7:10 AMRPPR - Preview Report

of 23https://reporting.research.gov/rppr-web/rppr?execution=e1s2

Preview of Award 1209169 - Annual Project Report

Federal Agency and Organization Element to Which Report isSubmitted:

4900

Federal Grant or Other Identifying Number Assigned byAgency:

1209169

Project Title: Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement forSTEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at UC

PD/PI Name: Santa Ono, Principal InvestigatorMelanie T Cushion, Co-Principal InvestigatorUrmila Ghia, Co-Principal InvestigatorSteven R Howe, Co-Principal InvestigatorRachel Kallen, Co-Principal Investigator

Submitting Official (if other than PD\PI): Rachel KallenCo-Principal Investigator

Submission Date: 07/01/2013

Recipient Organization: University of Cincinnati Main Campus

Project/Grant Period: 09/15/2012 - 08/31/2017

Reporting Period: 09/15/2012 - 08/31/2013

Signature of Submitting Official (signature shall be submittedin accordance with agency specific instructions)

Rachel Kallen

Cover

Accomplishments* What are the major goals of the project?

Initiative I: Improve pathways for women faculty, including women faculty of color, in STEM by broadening recruitment,improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement.

Bottom Up: Proposed activities include three separate professional development workshop series for women STEMfaculty, and a LEAF mini-grants program to support women STEM faculty professional development and research.However, bottom up efforts related more broadly to this initiative are also included below.Top Down: Proposed activities include best practices seminars and training workshops for leadership (heads, deans andadministrators) and faculty committees responsible for hiring and RPT (reappointment, promotion, tenure). However,efforts related more broadly to this initiative are also included below.

Initiative II: Transform the climate for STEM faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promoteintellectual progress and equity, resulting in an inclusive culture.

Bottom Up: Proposed activities include the establishment of learning communities for women STEM faculty and aVisiting Scholars Program. However, bottom up efforts related more broadly to this initiative are also included below.Top Down: The primary purpose of this initiative is to assess climate and aid in development and implantation of unit-level logic models for change.

Initiative III: Create interdependence to reinforce mutual responsibility and fosters shared responsibility to enable sustainabledynamic institutional practice and policy.



Major Activities:

Initiative IV: Social Science research on climate and transformation of policy and reform, as expressed through messagelinguistics, subjective experiences, and social networks.

* What was accomplished under these goals (you must provide information for at least one of the 4categories below)?

Initiative I - Bottom-Up:

1. UC LEAF implemented the workshop series aimed at junior STEM women faculty(see Outcomes below). We did not start the mid-level and senior faculty series dueto coordination challenges with CET&L, but the content of these workshops isdeveloped and will be ready for fall 2013. Topics include the RPT process, labmanagement, mentoring, communication, and conflict management. Workshop(s)for URM STEM faculty are also being planned.

2. We issued a Branch leadership award to Margaret Kuperfele, PhD. (see Outcomesbelow). The call for the remaining LEAF grants will be released late summer. Wehave two tracks for each award, one for women STEM faculty of color and one forthe broader women STEM faculty. A minimum of three Seed and Career grants peryear will be awarded to junior and senior faculty, respectively. At least one of eachis designated for URM STEM women.

3. The UC LEAF Program Coordinator met with two UC staff members who specializein the internal grant application process to learn best practices for the oversight ofthe UC LEAF grants. She is taking the best practices and tailoring them to theneeds and scale of the LEAF program.

Initiative I - Top Down:

1. The UC LEAF launch event was held on April 8. Dr. Scott Page delivered thekeynote address on the power of diversity and inclusion. Following the keynote, UCLEAF hosted a networking luncheon for women STEM faculty and a best practicesworkshop led by Dr. Page (see Outcomes below).

2. We are working with the Associate Provost for Diversity & Inclusion to coordinatesearch committee training. LEAF will consult on best practices, collected from otherADVANCE programs. When the hiring department is in a STEM discipline, LEAFwill lead or co-lead the training session. Trainings were not held this year becauseof a hiring freeze in many STEM units; however, several searches (e.g.,Psychology, Math) will be open in AY13-14.

3. UC LEAF submitted a proposal under NSF ADVANCE’s Career-Life BalanceInitiative. We believe that by creating policies and practices to support dual careercouples, UC will improve its attractiveness as an employer and impact a keysource of women STEM faculty’s attrition from the workforce.

4. UC LEAF initiated a turnover study to survey faculty who have left UC since 1990.The goal is to identify the reasons faculty leave and whether women STEM facultyleave for reasons that differ from others. Findings will allow us to ensure that theresources being provided for current faculty address the pertinent issues. Datacollection will begin in July, pending IRB approval.

Initiative II - Bottom Up:

1. We are forming three learning communities (LCs) for fall 2013, two for junior



women and one for mid-career women. Drs. Sandra Degen (CCHMC), ChristyHolland (COM), and Sarah Whitton (A&S) will facilitate. Each is a graduate and/orpast facilitator of Ready Set Go! For Year 3 and beyond, we plan to use RSG andthe two other workshop series to recruit facilitators and will work with Barbara Rinto(UC Women’s Center) to identify mentors who are alumni of the Women’s Institutefor Leadership Development (WILD) program. URM STEM women will also havethe option to join a LC for URM STEM women faculty. Dr. Mitchell, (DDI) willidentify appropriate mentors.

2. The Program Director organized a STEM women’s faculty group within the COMcomprised of mid- and senior level women. The first meeting was held on April 4thwith eight senior women STEM faculty. At the second meeting, faculty from theCOM and A&S discussed UC’s financial accounting methods as a means tounderstand the dispersion of University funds. The discussion was led by Dr.Hardcastle, Chair of the AAC and past Dean of A&S.

3. In October, UC LEAF will co-host (with COM and CCHMC) Visiting ScholarCatherine Morrison, who will lead workshops on negotiation and conflict. OnOctober 21st, workshops will be held for junior and senior women scientists fromthe COM and/or CCHMC. On the 22nd, separate workshops will be held forleadership on west campus (e.g., Deans, Department Heads) and for womenSTEM faculty in CEAS, COB, and A&S. Members of the AAC will meet withCatherine for a working lunch to discuss conflict mediation and criticalconversations.

4. UC LEAF leadership held a luncheon with Interim Provost Johnson, for womenSTEM faculty on April 2. Attendees included faculty from all ranks across theSTEM disciplines. This was coordinated with the help of Associate Provost Martin.

Initiative II – Top Down:

1. We have begun the logic model/strategic planning trainings. The Provostrequested that we begin by soliciting voluntary participation from several academicunits. We identified five: Anthropology (A&S), Physics (A&S), Environmental Health(COM), Electronics and Computing Systems Engineering (CEAS), and MechanicalEngineering (CEAS). Scheduling has been difficult due to time demands and a lackof support (discussed in our challenges section). However, the first training sessionwas held on June 21st with the Dept. of Physics.

2. The Program Director met with the PI, President Ono, on June 14 todiscuss progress. A series of presidential lectures, supported by his office, wasplanned featuring prominent women in STEM. The audience will not be limited towomen STEM faculty in order to raise awareness of the issues facing women inSTEM and to signal institutional commitment UC LEAF. Women STEM faculty willbe invited to a reception and dinner following the event.

3. UC LEAF continues to work with the external evaluation team to adapt theMichigan State Work-Life Study to assess climate. The team is determining theoptimal time to have the survey launched to achieve the highest participation ratesbased on UC culture.

Initiative III:

1. Dr. Valerie Hardcastle, Chair of the Accountability and Advocacy Council (AAC),held the first AAC meeting on April 19. The committee shared ideas on key LEAFinitiatives and identified increasing recruitment outlets, looking at fundingincentives, and creating departmental support as keys to the success of the logic



Specific Objectives:

Significant Results:

models. Based on feedback from LEAF leadership, training attendees, and othersources, the AAC advocated for a blended model, with new programming from theProvost’s office paired with LEAF training materials on best practices in STEMhiring. The AAC also advised that sponsorship of the three workshop series becoordinated between LEAF, the Division of Research and CET&L.

2. The AAC’s first official evaluative meeting will occur in August, focused onpreliminary results from strategic planning initiatives/logic models in selecteddepartments.

Initiative IV:

1. For the discourse study, we collected all email communications from 2006 from twouniversity wide LISTSERVS and LISTSERVs from COM and CEAS. We alsohave 100 job ads from STEM faculty searches over the past 7 years that havebeen content analyzed.

2. A pilot survey for the network study was sent to 29 women STEM faculty. Wegained valuable insight from participants and are making appropriate adjustmentsbased on their feedback and the lessons learned by the research team at aworkshop attended in June (see Impact: Human Resources).

Initiative I – Bottom Up:

1. UC LEAF implemented Ready, Set, Go!, the first of three workshop series aimed atempowering junior STEM women faculty. RSG was offered in conjunction with theCenter for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (CET&L). UC LEAFdeveloped the content, identified appropriate facilitators, and sent personal emailinvitations to women STEM faculty. CET&L supplied the meeting space and theon-line registration system. A total of 214 faculty and staff, of whom 184 (86%) represented STEM disciplinesattended one of eight workshops offered through the series. Topics includedhiring, setting the tone of your lab, funding, time management, and mentoring. Evaluations results suggest that the workshops were well received. For instance,mean responses to the item, “The stated learning outcomes were achieved”ranged from 3.8 to 5.0 (on a 5-point Likert scale). Similarly, responses to “Theprogram provided me with the tools and strategies to improve my effectiveness andefficiency” ranged from 3.8 to 5.0. (See the Special Requirements section for asummary of workshop topics, learning objectives, evaluations, and the participantlist.)

2. UC LEAF conferred a Branch Award to Margaret Kuperfele, PhD., Assoc.Professor of Environmental Engineering, to co-sponsor her nomination to theELATE Program. ELATE (the Executive Leadership in Academic Technology andEngineering) is a national leadership development program designed to advancesenior women faculty in academic engineering, computer science, and relatedfields into effective leadership roles within their schools and universities. LEAF’ssponsorship of Dr. Kupferle calls for her to use her ELATE experience to advancethe mission of LEAF in some capacity (e.g., serving as a mentor, leading aworkshop, designing programming within the College of Engineering and AppliedSciences).

Initiative I – Top Down:

1. UC LEAF held its launch on April 8th. Dr. Scott E. Page, the Leonid HurwiczCollegiate Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics at The



University of Michigan delivered the keynote address to approximately 150 UCfaculty and staff. Following the keynote, UC LEAF hosted a networking luncheonfor women STEM faculty (described below) and a best practices workshop led byDr. Page for academic unit leaders from STEM departments. The goal of theworkshop, attended by 20 senior faculty, was to reinforce to leadership theimportant role that diversity plays within the university. Participants were alsocharged with taking this information back to their unit to serve as agents ofchange. The launch was advertised on the UC open calendar and communicatedthrough e-Currents, UC's daily on-line newsletter. Copies of the e-Currents article,launch invitation and brochure, and sign-in sheets are included in SpecialRequirements.

2. We created a longitudinal data file covering the years 1989-2013 for all UC facultymembers in the AAUP Bargaining Unit. This file, which will be updated annually,will have a multitude of uses: (a) it has been given to the external evaluation teamfor them to use in conducting the mandated salary survey; (b) it will be used as thebasis for mailings to participants for our first upcoming climate survey; (c) it will bethe basis for completing many of the NSF Indicator Tables; (d) it will be used toconduct survival analyses of UC faculty by unit, gender, ethnicity, etc.; (e) it hasbeen used to identify dual career faculty couples; and (f) it has already been usedto initiate a retention/turnover study that we will use to document baselineconditions.

Initiative II – Bottom Up:

1. In conjunction with Scott Page’s visit, a networking luncheon was held during theUC LEAF launch event in April. The purpose of this luncheon was to introduceUC’s women STEM faculty to one another and to our UC LEAF Leadership Team.We had a well-respected panel of senior UC women faculty who shared theirexperiences and discussed their expectations for what LEAF can achieve. Thepanelists included: Sandra Degen, Ph.D. (Professor and Interim Chair, Dept. ofMolecular Genetics, Biochemistry, & Microbiology), Barbara Rinto, MPA (Dir., UCWomen’s Center), Margaret Hanson, Ph.D. (Associate Dean, The GraduateSchool; Professor, Dept. of Physics), Robin Martin, Ed.D (Associate Provost forDiversity and Inclusion), Monica Mitchell, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Pediatrics(CCHMC) and Psychology; and Judith Feinberg, M.D., (Professor; Associate Chairfor Faculty Development Dept. of Internal Medicine). A total of 29 STEM womenfaculty attended the networking luncheon and feedback continues to be verypositive.

2. A short time after UC LEAF held the launch event we received an e-mail from thefaculty in Environmental Health Department that they were going to be holding afaculty gathering to get to know each other better and were motivated by what theyhad learned as part of the UC LEAF launch. This community building is exactlywhat we had hoped to inspire as a result of the launch event.

Initiative II - Top Down:

1. UC LEAF completed the first logic model training session was on June 21 with theDepartment of Physics. The Department Head, Kay Kinoshita, Ph.D., attendedalong with three faculty members who are each members of the department’sdiversity committee.

Initiative III:

1. Several issues were brought to the attention of upper administration by the AAC,



Key outcomes or Otherachievements:

including concerns regarding perceived glass ceilings for women, lack of women inleadership positions, and failure to retain women in Arts and Sciences. There arecurrently several leadership challenges in the university, including a new President,an interim Provost, a new permanent Provost who will start 1 August, a problematicdean in the College of Arts and Sciences, an interim dean in the College ofEngineering and Applied Science, and several other interim positions on theacademic side. We also expect leadership turn-over in several STEM departmentsthis year. Plans to alleviate the issues of concern are still being developed, thoughonce the retention concerns were brought to the attention of the Provost’s office,the office did move swiftly (though unsuccessfully). Effective communicationamong the relevant units still appears to be challenged

Initiative IV:

1. Under the guidance of the UC LEAF research team, Psychology student KennethAdi presented baseline data from the discourse study at the UC UndergraduateResearch Conference in May. For the study, 100 ads for STEM faculty positionsused over the past 7 years were content analyzed to assess the presence ofstandard affirmative action language versus language that was inviting for womenand minority faculty or that addressed a culture that was inviting or deterrent towomen. Results showed that 80% of the job ads used standard affirmativelanguage. Just 17% contained language that invited women and URM faculty toapply. Further, 12% of the ads referenced research that may appeal to women andminorities and 14% spoke about an inclusive culture. Findings will be used toestablish a baseline for UC LEAF. To the extent that our top-down efforts raiseawareness on the need for more inclusive search processes, we expect to see agreater percentage of job ads using language that is inviting for prospective womenand minority faculty, particularly in STEM.

* What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?

1. The Program Director will participate in a Mentoring Workshop that will be held September 16, 2013 at CincinnatiChildren’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC). “Addressing Equity and Inclusion in Mentoring.” The session will considerbest practices in mentoring women, cross-race mentoring and cross-generational mentoring. This particular session willbe held from 1:15 PM – 2:45 PM on September 16, 2013. Some preliminary goals for this session are for faculty to:Learn evidence based practices for successfully mentoring junior faculty who differ from mentors across dimensionssuch as race, gender and age and to identify strategies for learning about, recognizing and addressing issues of equityand inclusion to engage in conversations about diversity with mentees and foster a sense of belonging

2. Monica J. Mitchell, Ph.D., DDI, attended the following leadership opportunities: (1) “Negotiating What's Next” Retreat forWomen in Academic Medicine.”Baltimore, MD, November, 2012 and (2) Leadership Roundtable Seminars; CincinnatiChildren's Hospital, August 2012 - May 2013 (monthly); Senior Mentor: Michael Fisher, CEO.

3. Dr. Steve Howe (co-PI), and Dr. Stacie Furst-Holloway (Co-Associate Director) attended an nVivo training seminar inJanuary to learn more about this text analytic software that may be used to analyze the discourse data.

4. Co-Associate Directors Dr. Rachel Kallen and Dr. Stacie Furst-Holloway, along with graduate student Brian Eiler,attended the 5-day social network analysis workshop offered by the LINKS Center at the University of Kentucky’s GattonCollege of Business (https://sites.google.com/site/linkscenterworkshop2013). Attendance of the Associate ProgramDirectors was supported by an internal award from the UC Faculty Development Council. This workshop enabledparticipants to further develop their knowledge of social network analysis and to identify the appropriate methods foranalyzing the data we will collect. The workshop also allowed the team to develop relationships with Dr. Joe Labianca



(U. of Kentucky) and Dr. Rich DeJordy (Northeastern U.) who will provide on-going consultation as the network studyevolves.

* How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?

Initiative I:

1. The Ready Set Go! Workshops are available to all faculty members and can be easily registered for via a central onlinewebsite. UC LEAF continues to send e-mail reminders to all women STEM faculty at the appropriate career stage oneweek prior to the workshop.

Initiative II:

1. The entire UC community was invited to the UC LEAF launch. It was advertised through the campus wide newsletterand discussed with deans and department heads to encourage participation both of the administration and faculty. Having high level administrators visible and participating at the event, the President of the University, members of theProvost’s office, along with various Deans were in attendance, highlights the program’s importance to the campus.

Initiative III:

1. As a result of UC LEAF Leadership Team’s candid conversations and observations through University involvement alongwith ally faculty interaction, UC LEAF is continually developing its resources and plans to address the current needs ofthe women STEM faculty. As situations arise UC LEAF tries to take advantage of every opportunity to further itsinitiatives.

2. In addition, the UC LEAF Leadership has discussed more visibility of the AAC and is developing plans to coordinate asafe-zone program with the AAC in which STEM faculty may report incidences of bias or ask for guidance for handingsensitive issues that arise for women STEM faculty. We anticipate this will occur through multiple channels, including thewebsite.

Initiative IV:

1. Kenneth Adi, an undergraduate student and member of the research team, presented some preliminary results of theDiscourse Study at UC’s Undergraduate Research Conference in May.

* What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?

Initiative I - Bottom Up:

1. The grant call, review and award process for the academic year 2013 - 2014 will be completed. The development of theSOP for LEAF grants will be finalized and the RFP will be released late Summer/early Fall 2013. It is anticipated that theaward period will start September 30 or October 15, 2013. It will be difficult to anticipate challenges the first time aroundbut UC LEAF will benefit from the experience of other programs through the meetings attended by Program CoordinatorNancie Ehlert and the expertise of the Program Director in organizing a larger pilot project process through the Collegeof Medicine.

2. We will plan and develop mid-level and senior workshops to begin in the Fall of 2013.3. UC LEAF leadership has submitted an abstract to present progress at the ACE Ohio Women’s Network at Wright State,

November 1. This presentation and networking opportunities will serve to provide dissemination to external audiences. https://www.aceohiowomen.org/ACE/rfp/. Title: Moving the Needle at UC: Leadership, Empowerment, andAdvancement for Women Faculty in STEM


1. We will continue development and coordination with Robin Martin on Best Practices for RPT, recruitment, and Hiring.

https://ucmail.uc.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=0ceAwjYzbE6T3UJAr_7jhq9ArGUnRtAIq5J8fy8TE-10hQU_vqp036wbiLvOFumP3qQH9z3arrU.&URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.aceohiowomen.org%2fACE%2frfp%2f



2. We will finalize candidates for the Best Practices Seminar Series in the coming year.3. We will continue to utilize the expertise of the Internal Advisory Committee for suggestions on pathway improvement.

Suggestions to date have included:Talk about candidates available for a position and proactively seek/suggest new hiresTarget women during recruitment processes by utilizing social mediaUse collective bargaining agreement to mandate search committee training and use these strategies when hiring newleadersProvide means to disseminate and access information, such as through the LEAF websiteInvite LEAF allies to have a voice in implementing changeCreate incentives for hiring women STEM scientistsIntroduce diversity planning to informal networks and networks outside of LEAF


1. Training and curriculum development will be the focus of the Learning Community effort during this reporting period. During the upcoming reporting period the UC LEAF team will recruit facilitators as well as members for LearningCommunities. In August, training will be held so that facilitators are well equipped. Workshops and LearningCommunities will be launched with inaugural meetings in the August and September timeframe. The new facultyorientation will be held on August 23, the UC LEAF team will be ready to present and launch programs at that time torecruit new the newest faculty members.

2. We will host Catherine Morrison in October 2013 and finalize scheduling of the Spring semester Visiting Scholar.Initiative II - Top Down:

1. We will schedule more departments to begin logic model implementation in the Fall and begin conducting the first roundover the summer, starting with the Department of Physics on June 22, 2013.

2. We will continue to utilize the expertise of the Internal Advisory Committee for suggestions on actions needed tochange the UC climate. Suggestions they have provided in the past include:

Call attention to climate issues (in process)Provide prominence and visibility to LEAF initiatives, avoid appearing punitiveSupport women in achieving goals (i.e., equal space and salary)Include climate as a component of departmental logic modelsActively make UC competitive in recruiting and retaining STEM women (e.g., better start-up packages, connect with otherUC women and women of color)Consider employing a negotiation person for new hires

We plan to implement those recommendations (that have not yet been done) over the next year.

Initiative III:

the AAC plans to:

1. Conduct follow-up meetings with participants in search committee trainings to determine effectiveness.2. To evaluate and provide advice as needed on departments’ logic models.3. To help monitor and assist on-going STEM faculty searches.4. To meet individually with female URM faculty in the STEM disciplines to formulate a strategy for improving community

and networking opportunities. Initiative IV:

1. The UC LEAF Leadership Team continues to work with the external evaluation team on the content and timeline for theclimate survey. It recently became aware to members of the Leadership Team that the Provost’s office is planning onconducting a climate survey so we are going to be meeting with them to get more details and align efforts during theupcoming reporting period. It is anticipated that the climate survey will be launched in September of 2013.

2. Training will need to occur for the research team on the new IBM Modeler analysis tool. The formal training class



Title:

URL:

Description:

provided by IBM is cost prohibitive so the team will be using resources to teach themselves.3. The networking survey is also nearing distribution. The final edits and evaluations are being made now to reflect what

the UC LEAF team learned at the social network analysis conference Drs. Furst-Holloway and Kallen attended in June. We expect that the networking survey will be launched during the upcoming reporting period. One of the topics fordiscussion leading up to the distribution will be how to best encourage participation in the survey. We plan to have aletter expressing support from our PI, President Ono.

4. UC LEAF will conduct a social network analysis workshop that helps survey participants understand their results andimprove their network.

5. We will use the longitudinal data file covering the years 1989-2013 for all UC faculty members in the AAUP BargainingUnit to collect turnover data from former UC faculty. Specifically, data from an on-line survey of these faculty will allowus to assess why women STEM faculty leave and whether those reasons differ from men STEM faculty and/or men andwomen non-STEM faculty. Results of this study will be used to shape the content of, for example, workshops, bestpractice sessions, and logic model trainings. The survey has been developed. We are awaiting IRB approval to deploy.

ProductsJournals

Books

Book Chapters

Thesis/Dissertations

Conference Papers and PresentationsKenneth Adi (4/19/13). Documenting Baseline Efforts to Recruit Women and Minorities in STEM. University of CincinnatiUndergraduate Research Conference. Cincinnati, OH.

Status = OTHER; Acknowledgement of Federal Support = Yes

Other Publications

Technologies or TechniquesNothing to report.

PatentsNothing to report.

InventionsNothing to report.

LicensesNothing to report.

WebsitesUC LEAF - Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for Women Faculty in STEM

http://www.uc.edu/orgs/ucleaf.html

Other Products



Nothing to report.

ParticipantsResearch Experience for Undergraduates (REU) funding

What individuals have worked on the project?

Name Most Senior Project Role Nearest Person Month Worked

Santa Ono PD/PI 0

Rachel Kallen Co PD/PI 5

Steven R Howe Co PD/PI 2

Urmila Ghia Co PD/PI 1

Stacie Furst-Holloway Co PD/PI 5

Melanie T Cushion Co PD/PI 6

Sandra Degen Faculty 0

Matia Solomon Faculty 0

Farrah Jacquez Faculty 0

Kay Kinoshita Faculty 0

What other organizations have been involved as partners?Nothing to report.

Have other collaborators or contacts been involved? N

ImpactsWhat is the impact on the development of the principal discipline(s) of the project?


1. The workshop series for junior faculty, Ready Set Go! (RSG) is up and running. In AY13, 214 faculty, of whom 184(86%) represented STEM disciplines attended one of eight workshops. Evaluations provide some evidence of impact. Mean responses to the item “I would recommend this program to others” ranged from 3.8 (on a 5-point Likert scale) to5.0. Further, with the exception of one workshop, the vast majority of participants (>67%) reported that they wouldimplement what they learned “immediately” or “the next time it was relevant.” All faculty participating in CET&L’s NewFaculty Institute are required to attend RSG. We plan similar institutionalization for the mid- and senior careerworkshops, which should provide institutional stability for all career workshops. A full summary of RSG results areincluded in a separate attachment. RSG now resides and is administered by CET&L.



2. UC LEAF obtained support through the Office of the VP for Research to initiate pilot grants for diversity-relatedresearch. An under-appreciated tool for recruiting women, especially women from under-represented groups, is to buildacademic programs and research foci that feature topics that might attract more women applicants. For example,Psychology at UC found that its efforts to recruit graduate students and faculty from under-represented groups wereenhanced by promoting research into the science of diversity. Our goal is that the diversity grants willsimilarly impact other disciplines.

3. Two Division Directors approached the LEAF Program Director for advice on recruitment strategies to attract morewomen and URM women to apply for the Division Director position in Cardiology and as faculty in Digestive Diseases inthe Dept. of Internal Medicine. This illustrates that faculty from many different disciplines are seeking Best Practices. Codifying these in a Best Practice Handbook for Recruitment and Hiring will be a priority in AY14.


1. Presentations by LEAF Leadership to College and University leadership raised awareness for the need for increasingdiversity on search and promotion committees. As a result, the Program Director was appointed to the searchcommittee for the permanent Provost, the Research Advisory Committee to the VP for University Research, and thesearch committee for the Division Director of Cardiology. LEAF Co-PI Steve Howe also joined the advisory committeefor the Associate Provost for Diversity & Inclusion. Involvement with these committees brings visibility and a voice toLEAF at the upper echelons of the university, where the potential for impact is substantial. As evidence, MelanieCushion’s involvement on the Provostal Search Committee contributed to a strong sense on the committee that womenand candidates from under-represented groups had to be given serious consideration. Our new provost is a woman.

2. UC LEAF is partnering with Associate Provost Martin to coordinate the search committee training for STEMdepartments. Our offices also plan to meet with the incoming Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to propose a structuralchange in how faculty are hired at UC. This proposal would shift responsibility for faculty searches from HR to theProvost’s office, with the goal of signalling to prospective faculty that conducting broad and inclusive searches is astrategic necessity and central to the academic mission of the university rather than simply a compliance issue.


1. The UC LEAF launch raised awareness of UC LEAF and its goals and objectives. All UC faculty and staff were invited. Comments by the PI, President Ono and the Program Director, Melanie T. Cushion, Ph.D. made the 150+ faculty inattendance aware of the award initiatives. Publicity arranged through both the Colleges of Medicine and Arts andSciences provided a synopsis of the goals and objectives for faculty on both campuses and thus raised awareness onthe importance of diversity.

2. The UC launch networking lunch brought together more than 30 women STEM faculty who rarely (if ever) had a chanceto discuss their own experiences with one another. The success of this event led to other informal networking groupssuch as the senior career women STEM faculty monthly meetings held on the medical campus and social meetings inthe Dept. of Environmental Health. Such opportunities can provide the format to alleviate the expressed feelings ofisolation by our women STEM faculty.


1. UC LEAF is working with departments to arrange logic model training and the development of strategic plans centeringon recruitment, advancement, and retention of women faculty. The first training was held on June 21 with the head andthree faculty members in the Dept. of Physics. We are now scheduling meetings with 4 other departments: A&S-Anthropology, COM-Environmental Health, CEAS-Electronics and Computing System Engineering, and CEAS-Mechanical Engineering. While it is too soon to assess the impact on these first logic model sessions, our evaluationplan includes assessment of two intermediate goals: Deans demonstrating commitment to individual units having andimplementing logic models, and department heads implementing actions called for in their unit-specific logic models.

Initiative III:

1. Dr. Valerie Hardcastle is serving as the AAC Chair. This committee brings together a diverse group of members fromthe STEM disciplines for discussions and problem solving on oftentimes difficult topics. Because its members representvarious STEM disciplines and career-stages, the AAC can offer a balanced perspective on issues affecting women and



women of color. By encouraging the use of this resource, faculty seeking balanced solutions to difficult challenges willfind a much needed resource. Moreover, Dr. Hardcastle’s accessibility to university leadership enables her tocommunicate those challenges in a productive way to key decision makers. On behalf of the AAC, she has alreadyraised several faculty issues and concerns regarding equity in leadership and retention challenges with, for example, thePresident as well as leadership within the Colleges.

Initiative IV:

1. Work to date on the social science studies focused on data collection (see Accomplishments section). However, welearned several things that will impact not only our work but how data are collected by UC. We found that for someSTEM scientists, ethnicity was never recorded in the system from which our data was extracted, and that STEMscientists who are non-resident aliens do not have their ethnicity recorded at all. We also found that the College ofMedicine has not provided a full accounting of all RPT decisions to the Provost’s office. As a result, we had to usespecial procedures this year to obtain information about unsuccessful Medical Center bids for promotion and tenure.Further, the database to which we have access does not have information about departures and the reasons fordeparture, so in completing our NSF Indicator Tables for this year, we had to infer the cause of departures due toretirement based on age. Now that we have a grasp on all the data elements we need, we will work with InstitutionalResearch to improve systems.

What is the impact on other disciplines?

Initiative I -Bottom-Up:

1. Whenever possible, we have opened up LEAF programming and events to the broader faculty and UC community. Forinstance, faculty from across the university are invited to attend the three workshop series as well. As noted earlier, 14%of attendees in the Ready Set Go! Workshops represented departments outside of STEM.

2. Although the URC (University Research Council) grant developed with the Office of the Provost and the Office ofResearch on diversity is not limited to women STEM faculty, it signals UC leadership’s support and commitment todiversity efforts and is thus consistent with the mission of LEAF. Further, we anticipate that by providing funding andvisibility to diversity-related research (e.g., through recognition at yearly LEAF-sponsored conferences or symposiums),UC will improve its ability to attract and recruit a more diverse faculty.


1. The entire university was invited to attend the launch and keynote address by Dr. Page. The power of diversity asstressed in the keynote could be translated to any department or organization on the campus. We will follow this modelwith subsequent best practice seminars and Visiting Scholars.

2. The joint efforts of UC LEAF, the Associate Provost for Diversity & Inclusion, and the Office of Equal Opportunity andAccess to improve the way we hire faculty is not limited to STEM disciplines but applies across all disciplines.

3. The Department of Philosophy has aligned itself with the UC LEAF initiative (only 20% of tenure track positions inphilosophy are currently held by women) and has requested LEAF’s assistance in recruiting a senior woman. They areplanning an external site visit to solicit suggestions for how to attract more women graduate students. They have beenvery aggressive in recruiting women tenure track faculty, and they successfully requested reconsideration of an earlytenure case for one of their women philosophers of science who was originally denied.


1. It is anticipated that the concepts of the workshops and Learning communities will be imported into other Collegesettings, such as the College of Medicine, where they will be modified to address the needs of faculty other than STEM,such as clinicians.

2. Moving forward, the professional development training that UC LEAF will offer through, for instance our Visiting Scholarsprogram will cover topics (e.g., negotiation and conflict management) that are relevant to faculty at similar stages of theircareer across many disciplines. It will be a more efficient use of resources if all disciplines that would usually providetraining on the topic can collaborate for one training session. The potential is that this could open even more



opportunities for training and encourages cross functional dialogue. Initiative II - Top Down:

1. It is undoubtedly the case that on average the social sciences and the humanities at UC are farther ahead of the STEMsciences in embracing and enacting diversity. But even those disciplines may find the use of logic models of value inplanning and management of diversity. We are less certain about the status of diversity efforts in non-STEM professionalcolleges at UC (e.g, Design, Architecture, Art and Planning) but we assume that they too would be happy to adopt amodel shown to be effective and supported by the provost.

Initiative III:

1. Once the AAC is established and publicized as a resource for faculty, we anticipate that its reach will extend beyondSTEM disciplines to be a voice for women and URM faculty from across campus.

Initiative IV:

1. While the differences between men and women are often the greatest in STEM, many disciplines can benefit from theresearch that we are going to be conducting through the discourse and network analysis. Our findings can impacthow women within and beyond approach their careers and how those working with women faculty can make them anappreciated asset in their respective departments. As an example, we hope that by educating administrators about theresults of the discourse analysis that they will embrace our contributions to their communication strategy. For example, ifwe can demonstrate that there is effectively silence around work-life balance issues then they may be more likely toembrace some suggestions about example stories that could be prepared with such issues highlighted.

What is the impact on the development of human resources?


1. As noted above, LEAF Leadership’s presence on and ability to influence key search and advisory committees acrosscampus has and will lead to greater opportunities for gender equity. To date, discussion of UC LEAF objectivesthemselves has led to increased interest in diversifying faculty and committee membership.

2. The Branch award given to Dr. Margret Kupferle (CEAS) in support of her participation in ELATE will undoubtedlyexpand her leadership capacity. Moreover, her commitment to sharing her experience and mentoring other facultymembers at UC upon completion of the ELATE program will ensure an even greater impact for this investment.

3. The Seed and URC grants will provide funding for projects on diversity that will help to support nascent research bywomen and URM women in STEM. This provides a resource that is lacking on the UC campus. With dwindling funds, itis anticipated that the Office of Research will be required to reduce internal grant offerings and these seed grants willprovide an alternative resource to scanty funds reserved for this purpose.

4. As Director of LEAF Diversity, Dr. Monica Mitchell will focus on the application and integration of LEAF initiatives forwomen of color and minorities. While the disparity between white male and female faculty is astonishing, the disparity forminorities is even greater. Dr. Mitchell’s impact as a member of the UC LEAF Leadership Team will be the increasedparticipation of women of color and minorities in LEAF initiatives through specific outreach and in the consideration ofwhat programing to offer.

5. The Office of Research has reached out to LEAF personnel to assist in the long-term planning for the future of programsfor undergraduate research by female STEM students.

6. During recruitment of the Provost, candidates were happy to learn of the ADVANCE award and anxious to takeadvantage of the programming should they be chosen for the position, demonstrating its power as a recruitment tool atthe highest levels. It is with much enthusiasm that we welcome Dr. Beverly Davenport Sypher as our new Provost. Shehas worked with ADVANCE at Purdue and is looking forward to our partnership with the Provost’s Office.


1. Once developed and codified, the Best Practices in recruitment and hiring will be a valuable resource for departmentheads and search committee members that should translate into increased numbers of women and URM women in the



STEM disciplines.2. The discussion of the best practices on the power of diversity initiated after the UC LEAF launch in April has led to

increased interest in policies of best practices for recruitment and retention in the College of Medicine Divisions ofCardiology and Digestive Diseases.

3. Informing faculty candidates that an NSF ADVANCE award is active on campus will provide a recruitment tool in and ofitself. The Program Coordinator is preparing informational booklets about UC LEAF and NSF ADVANCE in recruitmentpackages.

4. The policy governing start-up funding requests for new faculty hires for the entire University contains the revision, “If thenew faculty hire will further UC’s commitment to diversity, the dean should explain how so in the funding request, as aportion of these University-wide funds have been designated for this purpose”.


1. The Ready Set Go! Series has provided multiple opportunities for professional development to nearly 200 faculty andstaff in areas such as time management, conflict resolution, and grant funding. The second two workshop series will belaunched this fall using the same framework as RSG. The early, mid- and late career workshops will provideopportunities for de novo networking and mentoring as well as providing essential information for a successful researchcareer.

2. The diversity of the attending faculty at the workshops takes advantage of the differences in thoughts and experiencesduring the interactive and problem solving portions of the workshops, thereby illustrating the power of diversity.

3. UC LEAF co-sponsored a visit by Astronaut Shannon Walker, which included a public lecture describing life on thespace station, and open reception, and, with the Department of Physics, an informal lunch with women undergraduateand graduate students. The events were attended by many community members, including some local school children. We are planning for similar events annually.

4. UC LEAF partnered with Dr. Suzanne Boys’ undergraduate Public Relations class in the fall to procure ideas on how topromote LEAF programming and events internally and externally (to UC alumni and the greater Cincinnati area). As aresult of this service-learning project, LEAF was provided with a strategy for utilizing Facebook and Twitter. In turn, theundergraduate PR students had an opportunity to develop their discipline-specific skills and built their own awareness ofSTEM and diversity at UC and in higher education more generally.

Initiative II – Top Down:

1. The baseline gender data and analysis we are conducting as part of the evaluation process and logic model training willprovide the basis for goals in recruitment, hiring and retention.

2. Climate data, in particular, will provide faculty and University leadership with an awareness of where we currently arewith respect to having a culture that is diverse and inclusive for all faculty and staff (including but not limited to STEM). On-going assessment data will allow us to identify how we are doing as we implement LEAF goals and objectives.

Initiative III:

1. The impact of the AAC on hiring, recruitment and retention is detailed above in the “disciplines” section.Initiative IV:

1. UC LEAF has recruited and trained a small cadre of undergraduate and graduate students to assist with the socialsciences studies. Several members of this team, including Kenneth Adi (undergraduate Psychology), Mary Jean Amon(graduate Psychology) and Brian Eiler (graduate Psychology), along with Dr. Steve Howe (co-PI), and Dr. Stacie Furst-Holloway (Co-Associate Director) attended an nVivo training seminar in January to learn more about this text analyticsoftware that may be used to analyze the discourse data.

2. Psychology student Kenneth Adi presented preliminary results from the discourse study at UC’s undergraduate researchconference in May.

3. Co-Associate Directors Dr. Rachel Kallen and Dr. Stacie Furst-Holloway, along with graduate student Brian Eiler,attended the 5-day social network analysis workshop offered by the LINKS Center at the University of Kentucky’s GattonCollege of Business (https://sites.google.com/site/linkscenterworkshop2013). Attendance of the Associate ProgramDirectors was supported by an internal award from the UC Faculty Development Council. This workshop enabled



participants to further develop their knowledge of social network analysis and to identify the appropriate methods foranalyzing the data we will collect. The workshop also allowed the team to develop relationships with Dr. Joe Labianca(U. of Kentucky) and Dr. Rich DeJordy (Northeastern U.) who will provide on-going consultation as the network studyevolves.

What is the impact on physical resources that form infrastructure?


1. One of the disparities that we discovered between male and female STEM faculty members is in physical resourcessuch as lab space and equipment. Lab space and equipment can have a profound effect on the research a facultymember is able to conduct, which relates almost directly to their ability to achieve job satisfaction and tenure. Throughthe Best Practices seminars, including Catherine Morrison’s Negotiation workshop in October, we expect that womenand URM women will possess the tools and increased confidence) to succeed in negotiating space allocationsconsistent with their male counterparts.


1. As a result of the resources provided by UC LEAF online, in workshops (e.g., Catherine Morrison), in trainings, and atguest lecture events that cover negotiation and the benefits of diversity we expect to see physical resource allocation atUC reach greater equality between men and women. Consistent with this initiative and impact, we have collected theUniversity data on space allocation and submitted it to the External evaluators. Start- up packages and space will reflectequity between gender and URM.


1. We anticipate that networking environments supported by UC LEAF will lead to increased collaborations resulting inshared instrumentation and participation in College Institutes/Centers that may involve shared facilities.

Initiative III:

1. Inequities in space, facilities and instrumentation facing current faculty will be mediated by the AAC and solutions toprovide more equitable allocations will be achieved.

Initiative IV:

1. We do not anticipate that the results from the social sciences studies will directly impact physical resources. Indirectimpact may occur to the extent that results from the network analysis enable women STEM faculty to identify and thenconnect with those individuals who are most likely to make decisions regarding space and other physical structures.

What is the impact on institutional resources that form infrastructure?


1. Our desire to partner with CET&L and the Office of Research in providing the three workshop series is to set thefoundation for sustainability. To date, the university has lacked a cohesive strategy and set of programs to developfaculty skills outside the scope of research (e.g., grant writing) and teaching. However, a range of interpersonal skillsand leadership competencies are needed to complement those areas if women (and men) are to develop and advancein their careers. Accordingly, we envision that the framework we establish for the workshop series will continue longafter the LEAF funding period.


1. It is quite possible that the best practices in recruitment, dual career hiring, retention and enhancement being developedby UC LEAF will alter institutional policies and practices, particularly if we are able to demonstrate empirically that thesepractices improve key outcomes of interest (e.g., retention, engagement).



2. As noted in “Impact,” we have made several discoveries with respect to how data on human resources are collected,tracked, and reported at UC. We are working with Institutional Research to work on improvements to these processesso that UC LEAF (and others) may have more accurate and comprehensive data to aid in program and policy decisions.

3. The logic model training will provide planning and monitoring tools that not only help track progress towards LEAFspecific goals but will also be transferable to other areas that the department may work in. This will provide anotheravenue for planning and accountability that will be familiar University wide. These training sessions, led by LEAF seniorpersonnel, will ensure that information is shared consistently across units and that expectations for action are sharedequally.

Initiative II - Bottom up:

1. Learning communities will directly impact the University as a result of their institutional action project, as required will berequired by the program. These are projects that will be designed to address a problem, lack of resources, or otherinstitutional weaknesses and are vetted by LEAF leadership and Learning Community members and facilitators. Further,learning communities for mentoring will become sustainable as they translate to the different university settings, e.g.Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training which has a mentoring component and CCHMC MentoringInstitute.

2. The recruitment of LEAF allies will help the spread of UC LEAF initiatives by word of mouth and action through theUniversity. Faculty from many departments are willing to bring the resources provided to their departments for internalmomentum and discussion. Our allies are internal and external contributors who will help us embrace, support, andpromote the LEAF mission. Improving the pipeline for women faculty in STEM will improve perceptions of the climate,but establishing support systems to enable change is also critical. Doing so requires breaking down barriers that existbetween faculty, administrators, and decision-makers across all levels of the university community to reduce prejudicesand promote equal opportunity policies and access to resources.

Initiative III:

1. Discussed above; policy and committee structureInitiative IV:

1. We anticipate that findings from the discourse analysis and social network studies will be used to design and implementevidence-based practices around recruitment, advancement, and retention as well as more broadly around issues ofculture and climate.

What is the impact on information resources that form infrastructure?


1. The UC LEAF website was launched on March 12, 2013. It will be used to disseminate UC LEAF related informationsuch as resources for common challenges, announcements for and information from UC LEAF events, and will serve asa communication center for women faculty.

2. The UC LEAF website will be the One-Stop-Shop for policies, tool kits and Best Practices for the University as well asother higher education institutions.


1. Social networking (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and other events will be accessed through the UC LEAF website toencourage interaction, idea exchange, and dialogue amongst our women STEM faculty, the university, and the largercommunity. Moreover, there will be opportunities for women faculty to share, communicate, and exchange ideasthrough posts and e-mail. The website will be used in addition to e-mail to share information on LEAF events and relatedaccomplishments to increase visibility and awareness of LEAF programs.

Initiative III:

1. AAC will help LEAF leadership evaluate data collected on diversity and faculty attitudes, and act upon the messaging.Reports will be disseminated to inform faculty and leadership.



Initiative IV:

1. UC LEAF will disseminate findings from the social science studies to audiences internal and external to UC, as well asthose representing academic (research and administrative) and industry circles. As noted in our Dissemination report,these plans include presentations at academic conferences and events as well as publications to be submitted toacademic and practitioner journals. Underlying these efforts will be the development of databases for both the discourseand network studies that can be used by university leadership moving forward to monitor progress and/or maintenanceof LEAF-related objectives.

What is the impact on technology transfer?

Initiative I:

1. Dissemination of Best Practices by UC LEAF will be accomplished by participation at Social Network analysisconferences and other venues such as the AAMC annual meeting, influencing other institutions to adopt similarsuccessful programs.

2. Changes in the diversity of faculty will be noted and accepted by faculty, furthering the cause of cultural transformation.3. Influencing leadership diversity will serve as a model for UC Colleges and other institutions of higher education,

especially those in urban areas as is UC.4. It is our plan to include technology transfer and entrepreneurialism within the framework of our planned workshops and

also as special topics seminars. It is clear that women are at a disadvantage versus their male counterparts in this arenaof commercialization of research and academic products. Dr. Cushion serves on the selection committee for the newCEO of the UC Research Institute that has as its goal to help and facilitate faculty for commercialization of theirdiscoveries. She has strongly suggested to each of the candidates that an educational component be included in themission of the UCRI to help faculty step up to this challenge. It is our plan to be a part of the planning of these efforts,which will be facilitated by the Program Director’s membership on the VP for Research’s Advisory Committee.

Initiative II:

1. Outcomes of the Institutional Action Projects by the Learning Communities will improve the social, environmental andresearch conditions of the University.

2. Seed grants will improve the research conditions of women and URM women in STEM.3. The establishment of external allies will be a positive step for the LEAF team to ensure that practices developed through

our initiatives will have the input of those outside of academia and the ability to be transferred to those institutions. Inmany industries women still experience inequalities when compared to their male peers so the developments that resultfrom the LEAF efforts should be reviewed by collaborators that can advise on its transferability. As a result, resourcesand recommendations can be made available through LEAF to aid interested parties internally and externally,broadening the reach of our program.

4. At this point in the life of the award, the impact on technology transfer is only in a nascent stage. UC LEAF leadershipanticipates that the first set of pilot project awards and institutional action projects will see an impact on technologytransfer. It will also be a goal to include the vision and mission of the newly built University of Cincinnati ResearchInstitute, which intends to facilitate commercialization of faculty intellectual properties and to aid in entrepreneurialism, asa major focus of planned workshops to encourage women STEM faculty in these endeavors.

Initiative III:

1. Outcomes negotiated by the AAC will improve the environment of women and URM STEM and serve as an example foradoption of similar practices.

Initiative IV:

1. Dissemination of findings from the social sciences studies will allow for new knowledge to be transferred to entities ingovernment, academia, and industry.

2. It is also possible that research findings from these studies will result in the creation of new evidence-based practices at



UC (within and across colleges) focused on communication practices and/or networking.

What is the impact on society beyond science and technology?

Initiative I:

1. The practices that are initiated by UC LEAF will be transferable outside of the STEM fields as evidence-based bestpractices for inclusion. Women face challenges when compared to their male counterparts in many areas outside ofacademics. The globalization of the economy has increased the need for the inclusion of individuals so there will be acontinued and a growing desire for these types of data.

2. The benefits of inclusion and diversity are not unique to UC or even to a university setting. The methods anddevelopments that are a product of the practices implemented by UC LEAF will be easily transferable externally. Webelieve that through publications and presentations other organizations such as non-profits, other universities, andcorporations will implement the practices that we develop.

Initiative II:

1. The AAC, professional development workshops, Learning Communities, and combined bottom up and top downapproach are models that could be used to improve the climate in almost any organization. The ability to join ideas fromstaff and have them heard by interested leaders, the development of workforce skills in career advancement, teamsfocused on innovation, and approaching the same issue from the top and bottom are all concepts that are generatinggreat excitement in industry. To be able to translate these new interests into evidence based practices through ourresearch will only increase their popularity.

Initiative III:

See comments above.

Initiative IV:

1. To the extent that research findings from the social sciences studies are presented at conferences and published inoutlets outside the realm of STEM (e.g., Society for Human Resource Management, Academy of Management), we willbe able to reach scholars and practitioners who may serve quite diverse publics. As many of these findings may begeneralizable outside the boundaries of STEM, it behooves the research team to plan activities that would reach abroader audience.

ChangesChanges in approach and reason for change


1. The workshop series for mid- and senior-level faculty were delayed due to coordination issues with CET&L. Ourpartnership with CET&L was based on the understanding that LEAF would design each series and recruit the sessionleaders. CET&L would provide their facilities and the use of their registration system in exchange for being able to offerthe workshops through their unit. However, we encountered difficulty in maintaining these lines of responsibility asCET&L aims to extend their suite of offerings and thus wishes greater control over content, recruitment, and evaluation. We believe it may be necessary to assume full responsibility for the workshops we outlined. While we are hoping towork with CET&L, we are also working with other offices to streamline programming and prevent duplication of effort.Upon the advice of the AAC, and with help from the Provost’s office, we are working to offer the series throughalternative venues such as the Office of Research.

2. The call for proposals for the LEAF grants was delayed. The grants administration process has a considerablecomplexity in order to be run effectively. In lieu of waiting for a formal RFP to be processed during the initial year of the



cooperative agreement, LEAF identified and took advantage of an opportunity to provide funding (via the LeadershipBranch award) to sponsor Dr. Margaret Kupferle in the ELATE program. The Call for proposals is being issued latesummer, with the first funding period to occur for the AY13–14.


1. While UC LEAF planned to develop and execute the search committee trainings we learned last fall that the universitycreated a new position, Associate Provost for Diversity & Inclusion that would be charged with providing this traininguniversity-wide. Robin Martin, Ed.D., was placed in this role. To avoid duplication of effort, we are partnering with Dr.Martin’s office to conduct the trainings. LEAF will provide consultation on best practices, collected from other ADVANCEprograms, in the design of the training. Also, when the hiring department is in a STEM discipline, LEAF will lead or co-lead the training session.


1. We are organizing the LCs to begin in Fall 2013 and plan to start the LC program small: focusing on three groups offaculty (a junior and senior LC consisting of women STEM faculty from the COM and CCHMC, and a junior LC forwomen STEM faculty from all other STEM units). By having just three LCs, we will be able to focus on the selection andtraining of appropriate facilitators and to more closely monitor LC activities and progress. We expect that the success ofthese initial LCs will allow us to expand the number of LCs in subsequent years. Further, as we accumulate moregraduates of LEAF programming (via workshops and LCs), we expect to have a ready-made cadre of other womenfaculty motivated and trained to assume LC facilitator roles.

2. While we anticipated (and continue to plan) a formal process in which LEAF would design, recruit, organize, and leadLCs from inception, we have discovered and supported other opportunities for informal LCs and groups to emerge muchmore organically. As noted in the Accomplishments section, for example, LEAF leadership initiated a STEM women’sfaculty group in the COM and CCHMC. Other examples of these informal LCs and networking groups include the“Lunch with the Provost” event and Black Faculty Networking Events at CCHMC supported by LEAF Director of DiversityInitiatives, Dr. Mitchell. We will continue to encourage the formation of these types of groups as activities are held forSTEM women.


1. The UC LEAF leadership team met with Provost Larry Johnson and Kristi Nelson, Senior Vice Provost for AcademicPlanning, on March 1 to discuss the roll-out of the logic model workshops to the designated STEMdepartments. Recognizing that a unilateral, top-down approach would likely spark unnecessary resistance, thismeeting served as an opportunity for us to collectively plan the implementation strategy. As noted in theAccomplishments section, the Provost asked that we start with a small group of departments who have expresseda willingness to develop their logic models. The intent is to build upon the success of these first efforts and use theirexample (and testimony) to recruit additional departments to participate.

2. Dr. Howe has discussed at length the impact and merits of participating in these trainings, ranging from effectivedepartmental goal setting to the end result of diversity and inclusion. At a recent teleconference, the PO suggested weresearch incentives used by other ADVANCE holders and we will explore the successes of those universities.

3. On June 10, Beverly Davenport Sypher was named Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost at UC. Herappointment ended a 9-month period in which the UC LEAF team was operating with interim (although supportive)leadership at the top academic post. We are not only encouraged to have a permanent Provost in place, but one withthe impressive track record that Provost Davenport Sypher possesses with respect to faculty development, particularlyas it relates to women in STEM. She is joining UC from Purdue, another ADVANCE IT institution and is familiar with theoverarching goals of the program. UC LEAF Leadership will be meeting with her when she arrives on campus in earlyAugust. She will be briefed on UC LEAF initiatives and progress, and we will outline ways in which to enlist her role.

Initiative III:

1. The structure and purposes of the AAC will be more broadly communicated to stakeholders using the UC LEAF web site



and word of mouth as more women STEM Faculty become aware of the ADVANCE goals and objectives.Initiative IV:

1. As a result of attending the Social Networks workshop in June, the research team modified the study design to includedata collection at the department-level. Collecting these data will allow us to examine, within each department, howfaculty collaborate and support one another and the extent to which they interact. We will also be able to examinewhether the shape of the intra-departmental network relates to the climate for diversity and inclusion as reported in theClimate Survey.

2. The discourse study is unfolding much as we proposed it. We have acquired the baseline data (e.g., communicationsfrom the previous five years) and have acquired and trained the lab staff on Nvivo. The volume of data we wish toanalyze has raised the possibility that the text analytics engine in the newest version of IBM Modeler 15 might make ourwork easier and our analyses better. We have acquired this product and are in the midst of evaluating it.

3. We created a longitudinal data file covering the years 1989-2013 for all UC faculty members in the AAUP BargainingUnit. This file, which will be updated annually, will have a multitude of uses: (a) conducting the mandated salary survey;(b) mailing participants the upcoming climate survey; (c) completing many of the NSF Indicator Tables; (d)conducting survival analyses of UC faculty; (e) identifying dual career faculty couples; and (f) initiating a turnover studythat we will use to document baseline conditions.

Actual or Anticipated problems or delays and actions or plans to resolve them


1. In January UC LEAF worked with a branding company in the Cincinnati area to design a website, posters, and logo. Theteam decided to go outside of UC offerings because the results presented by the internal team were not appealing. As aresult UC LEAF started using a graphic design with their logo. The team was unaware at the time about the strictbranding and marketing restrictions that UC has in place for its organizations. It has come to our attention now, after alengthy process for printing materials, that the UC LEAF logo must not be a fixed graphic but something that canaltered. Working through this process caused a significant delay in the ordering of material for our launch event whichcaused us to incur a great deal of otherwise unnecessary shipping and rush charges.

2. Our intention with the UC LEAF launch was to start to encourage the connection between women STEM faculty and theMedical Campus and those at the Main Campus. To facilitate this, UC LEAF paid for a shuttle to transport faculty backand forth between the two campuses for the event. The concept of the arranged UC LEAF shuttle was so that it wouldbe quick and easy for faculty to get across campuses to accommodate for their busy schedules. The shuttle companyon the morning of the launch was not able to provide a shuttle driver because they were understaffed and so weanticipate that there were about 20 people who were unable to attend the launch as a result.


1. Delays in training relative to recruitment and selection occurred due to a major hiring freeze across the university,including but not limited to STEM disciplines. Although several departments have been given the green light to hire forAY14-15, budget approvals for these positions came quite late. Accordingly, we are behind in getting to thesedepartments as they start the process. Further, although some hiring freezes have been lifted, recruitment efforts willcontinue to lag. For instance, within the College of Arts & Sciences, only 14 tenure-track searches will be open forpositions beginning Fall 2014. Of those 14 positions, only 3 (1 Math, 2 Neuroscience) are for STEM positions. The UCLEAF team is working to develop alternative routes to create more hiring opportunities.

2. As part of evaluation efforts, we identified a number of deficiencies in UC data systems that will have to be amelioratedover the course of the grant if we are to make reporting as efficient as possible in future years. First, UC used to have atwo-provost system, one for the Medical Center and one for the rest of the university. A remnant of that system, wediscovered, is that the College of Medicine has not provided a full accounting of all reappointment, promotion, and tenuredecisions to the now-sole provost’s office. As a result, we had to use special procedures this year to obtain informationabout unsuccessful Medical Center bids for promotion and tenure. Second, the database to which we have access doesnot have information about departures and the reasons for departure, so in completing our NSF Indicator Tables for this



year, we had to sometimes guess the cause for departures being retirement (based on age). Third, we discovered thatfor a portion of STEM scientists, ethnicity was never recorded in the system from which our data was extracted, and thatSTEM scientists who are non-resident aliens do not have their ethnicity recorded at all.


1. UC LEAF proposed the creation of learning communities (LCs) for junior, mid-level, and senior women faculty in STEMto begin in Year One. However, we experienced delays in establishing the LCs due to the myriad of competing demandswe encountered while establishing our infrastructure including the hiring of the Program Coordinator who was not on siteuntil January 2013. As she was not familiar with the campus, contacts, and other resources, programming andimplementation of other initiatives were slower than anticipated.


1. As noted above, we have experienced delays in starting the logic model training due to concerns about being too heavyhanded in the implementation. That is, rather than using a decidedly top-down approach in which departments would beforced to participate in this process, we have opted to use a more deliberate process in which we work initially with asubset of departments that volunteer for the training.

Initiative III:

No actual or anticipated changes to report.

Initiative IV:

1. The research team opted to start data collection for the Social Network study until after the June workshop at the LINKSCenter. This decision was made in anticipation of the fact that some elements of the study design might change as aresult of new knowledge gained during the training.

2. As noted earlier, we have experienced some delays processing the content for the discourse analysis due to limitationsof the software.

Changes that have a significant impact on expenditures

Initiative I:

1. As a result of our efforts to leverage existing relationships with other entities and academic units on campus, LEAF hasbeen able to achieve cost savings on several programming events. For instance, Dr. Scott Page’s keynote address atthe UC LEAF launch in April, was co-sponsored by LEAF as well as Office of the President, Provost, Graduate School,and Dean of the College of Medicine. As another example, we are working with CCHMC to co-sponsor the visit from ourFall 2013 Visiting Scholar, Catherine Morrison.

2. We have also garnered support from the Offices of the Vice President for Research and the Provost for $10,000 insupport for Diversity Seed Grants.

3. The surplus in the current budget stems from programming that has not been implemented including LearningCommunity initiatives; Training Workshops; and Best Practices seminars. These programming initiatives will beimplemented during AY 13-14.

Initiative II:

No changes to report.

Initiative III:


Initiative IV:




Significant changes in use or care of human subjects

Initiative IV:

The introduction of the turnover study, in which we will be surveying former UC faculty, necessitated that we file amodification for our IRB protocol. We have submitted the modification and are awaiting word from IRB on the status of ourexemption.

Significant changes in use or care of vertebrate animalsNothing to report.

Significant changes in use or care of biohazardsNothing to report.

Special Requirements

Responses to any special reporting requirements specified in the award terms and conditions, as well asany award specific reporting requirements.

Supporting Files

Filename Description UploadedBy

UploadedOn

DisseminationPlanFINAL0628.pdf

UC LEAF Dissemination Plan RachelKallen

07/01/2013

Launch Material2.pdf Material used for UC LEAF launch event RachelKallen

07/01/2013

ProjectGovernanceFinal0628.pdf

UC LEAF Project Governance Document RachelKallen

07/01/2013

RSG Data.pdf Feedback from Ready Set Go! Workshop Participants RachelKallen

07/01/2013

RSG Particpants.pdf List of participants in REady Set Go! Workshops RachelKallen

07/01/2013

IAC Meeting Minutes.pdf Meeting minutes from March 11 UC LEAF Internal AdvisoryCommittee Meeting

RachelKallen

07/01/2013

Evaluation Plan .pdf UC LEAF Evaluation Plan RachelKallen

07/01/2013

TimeLine-FINAL0628.pdf UC LEAF Timeline RachelKallen

07/01/2013

NSF Indicator Tables.pdf NSF Indicator Tables RachelKallen

07/01/2013



External Evaluation.pdf UC LEAF External Evaluation Report RachelKallen

07/01/2013

UC LEAF Dissemination Plan Overview Dissemination of LEAF’s accomplishments, programs, and outreach is essential to its success. According to Carpenter et al., 2005, effective dissemination “relies on the use of varied channels—e.g., publications and reports, Web sites and other electronic communications, meetings and conferences, person-to-person communications, formal collaborations or information networks.” These will be employed to reach our various constituencies with the goal of enhancing the visibility of UC scientists and progressing the ADVANCE mission as a whole. Our plans include sharing LEAF results and products internally with various constituents as well as externally with other institutions and organizations. By doing so, we will make LEAF initiatives well-known to those in STEM disciplines across and outside the campus and give participants and LEAF leadership the opportunity to spread the message as they interact with other institutions.

To enhance impact, disseminated materials will combine ADVANCE-specific information with practical tools for STEM scientists. Information about the LEAF mission, women in STEM, and best practices, will be combined with announcements of career-enhancing opportunities such as conferences, funding, and training opportunities. This will contribute to the ADVANCE initiatives as well as attract people to use LEAF services. The audience will be further expanded by targeting STEM students and faculty at all career stages. These tactics will be applied to electronic and print media, and professional development opportunities. We expect communication tools to evolve during the tenure of LEAF and thus students and young faculty will be probed by informal meet ups to identify new and effective modes of digital communication. We intend to use all the resources available to us at UC. This effort will be an important facet of our ability to remain nimble. Finally, Barick et al. report that person to person encounters are the most efficient way to transfer knowledge, invite communication and discourse, and can provide a platform for persuasion. Thus, a key component of our dissemination plan will be developing and leveraging our internal and external networks. Personal relationships that are built over time are critical for knowledge transfer and enhance a common purpose, built trust, allow for non-verbal nuances and produce a culture of transparency. These linkages serve as a conduit for all parties to exchange critical information. A continual process of evaluation is also necessary to ensure the efficiency of the processes employed. In the space below, we describe the specific components of the LEAF dissemination plan. 1. Web Presence

A. LEAF Website

The website (http://www.uc.edu/orgs/ucleaf.html) will offer convenient access to LEAF services and communicate its goals to a broader audience. Specific content will include: • Best practices and resources for hiring, developing, and retaining faculty to assist

senior leaders in decision making and unit-based practices

• Accomplishments and programming information (e.g., workshops, learning communities) to inform women STEM faculty of opportunities to learn and develop

• Research findings, “report cards” on recruitment and retention, faculty spotlights and community outreach to inform our external audience (including but not limited to other NSF ADVANCE institutions), about LEAF activities and progress.

Beyond this, the website will focus on creating a sense of community. To accomplish this, those agreeing to participate in LEAF programs, including speakers, mentors, and key faculty, will be invited to add a link to their personal profile and/or to feature their work on the website to enhance their visibility. In addition, the website will identify a contact person to respond to questions and comments. This position will serve to pair dissemination with a process for feedback. A screen shot of the UC LEAF homepage is shown below.

B. Social Media Presence: In the grant, we noted that LEAF would develop a Facebook page to communicate with internal and external stakeholders. The Facebook site will mirror many of the features of the website, but also allow for informal dialogue and discussion between LEAF personnel, participants, STEM faculty and students, and members of the broader community. In addition to Facebook, we plan to establish a Twitter account and maintain an RSS feed, both of which will be accessible through the web-site.

2. Print Media and Collateral Materials A. Bi-Monthly Newsletter

A professional logo and branding will differentiate LEAF from other campus initiatives and organizations. UC LEAF is a vibrant community intending to transform the culture

of UC. Branding will be used not only through social media but also collateral materials for advertising workshops and events. These materials include posters and printed materials, letterhead, and merchandise advertising UC LEAF. Print media will be utilized in the form of a bimonthly newsletter, also featured on the website. The newsletter will be dispersed to STEM faculty mailboxes and left in lobby areas around campus. Best practices of ADVANCE will be highlighted along with faculty profiles and career opportunities. Our plan is to produce the first bi-monthly newsletter immediately following the LEAF Launch on April 8th. We anticipate that the launch will generate quite a bit of excitement and energy around the larger initiative. Thus, we want to capitalize on and then sustain this momentum by sending the newsletter in the subsequent week with feature stories and pictures from the launch itself. We will then initiate the bi-monthly schedule as noted above.

B. Additional Materials LEAF will also increase its visibility by displaying posters throughout the STEM departments on a yearly basis, including those from poster presentations. Our aim here, as with the website, is to use increased visibility of our participants to enhance collaboration among its members. We commissioned The Creative Department, a boutique advertising and branding firm headquartered in Cincinnati to develop a visual identity (and corresponding equity guide) to be used in our web and print materials. Shown below are several images from the Creative Department that will be used in these materials.

Join us for our next informative program: Women in Science Speaker Series

L E A R N M O R E A T U C . E D U / O R G S / L E A F

3. Campus-Related Programming and Events

A. On-Campus Launch

Although not articulated specifically in the grant, the UC LEAF team plans to organize an official “launch” for the initiative as a vehicle for introducing our mission, objectives, and leadership team to the UC community. By inviting a nationally-known guest speaker and scheduling remarks from UC President and LEAF PI Santa Ono, we aim to raise the profile of LEAF on campus and signal the real commitment that UC leadership has placed behind this effort. The launch will be targeted primarily to an internal audience, with specific programming for administrators (e.g., deans and directors) as well as women faculty that we are specifically targeted through LEAF programming. The launch is scheduled to take place on Monday, April 8, 2013. We have secured Scott Page (http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~spage/bio.html) to provide keynote remarks and to conduct a two-hour workshop with deans and department heads. We also plan to send a special invitation to women faculty in STEM disciplines to attend the launch and to participate in a networking luncheon. For senior leadership, we will also organize a seminar/workshop led by Dr. Page focusing on their role in promoting a more diverse and inclusive workplace. For the university community as a whole, we plan to utilize the launch to introduce the leadership team and to review LEAF objectives. We will also inform the community of our progress to date.

B. Workshops and Learning Communities Throughout the course of the funding period, UC LEAF will sponsor a variety of workshops, learning communities, best practice speakers, and other events. Each of these events will provide an opportunity for the LEAF team to share program updates, findings, and news with participants. Further, we expect that findings from our research and evaluation efforts will inform the content of these events.

4. External / Broad Dissemination

EMPOWERING WOMENWITH THE POWER OF STEM.

L E A R N M O R E A T U C . E D U / O R G S / L E A F

In addition to our focus on dissemination to our internal audience, the UC LEAF team will engage in several activities designed to ensure that the project’s results, lessons learned and promising practices will be widely disseminated. A. NSF Meetings

One of many target audiences for UC LEAF is the community of ADVANCE-IT institutions from whom we hope to both learn from and inform. Thus, we aim to send a minimum of 4 people a year to NSF ADVANCE meetings, and for them to be involved in panel discussions, symposia and workshops. Our dissemination plan also includes reporting regularly to NSF ADVANCE, inviting program directors to attend major activities, and utilizing our external advisory committee (EAC) to keep NSF ADVANCE aware of our activities and results.

B. Professional Conference Presentations and Publications

The UC LEAF research team will actively pursue opportunities to disseminate findings from the two social science studies and results of programming efforts to external audiences. Dissemination will occur through publications in scholarly journals, trade journals and newsletters, and through presentations at various academic conferences.

• Publication outlets could include Gender and Education; Journal of Diversity in Higher Education; Journal of Higher Education; Journal of Women and Minorities in Sciences and Engineering; Social Forces; Social Networks; and Research in Higher Education.

• In addition to refereed publications, we will actively seek opportunities to publish UC LEAF-related findings in the trade journals and newsletters of our various disciplines, including the Association for Women in Science newsletter, Women in Higher Education, SWE Magazine, and the WEPAN Knowledge Center.

• Conferences will include the Gender Equity conference, APA annual meetings, Divisions 8 and 27 of APA annual meetings, the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference, and the Society for Community Research and Action biannual conference.

C. Day-Long Workshop

Before completion of the funding period, a comprehensive day-long workshop will be held inviting individuals from other organizations and institutions to learn best practices of promoting equity in the workplace. This event reflects a commitment of the UC LEAF initiative to partner with organizations from various sectors in the region to disseminate information and share best practices. As one of the largest public universities in the Midwest and one of the top 25 public research universities in the country, UC will position itself as a leader in the scholarship and practice of the advancement and inclusion of women in STEM disciplines. Engagement of the broader community will provide two primary benefits: enhanced opportunities to recruit top student and faculty talent into STEM programs through

greater visibility and promotion of ADVANCE efforts and increased opportunities to identify novel and innovative best practices by expanding information exchange across sectors. Information presented during this workshop will be shared through the website.

UC LEAF Launch Material Table of Contents

Title Page 1. Main Event Invitation 1 2. Invitation to Networking Lunch 2 3. Invitation to Scott Page Workshop 4 4. UC Internal News Story 5 5. Program For Launch Event 7 6. Networking Lunch Handout 15 7. Sign In for Main Event 17 8. Sign In for Networking Lunch 22 9. Sign In For Scott Page Workshop 23

You are invited to the launch of

April 8, 2013 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

TUC Great Hall Transportation will be provided from the Medical Campus.

Please see UC LEAF website for details.

All UC faculty and staff are invited to learn about UC LEAF, a new NSF ADVANCE Program committed to furthering a diverse and inclusive

university community.

A welcome from UC President Santa Ono will be followed by a keynote address from Dr. Scott E. Page, Ph.D., a nationally renowned speaker and expert in improving collective performance and decision-‐making through

diversity.

“Ability matters but -‐ here’s the catch -‐ so does diversity.” -‐Scott E. Page

For more information on UC LEAF or Scott Page visit our website

Keynote sponsored by: Office of the President and the UC Graduate School

Monday, June 17, 2013 1:12:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Page 1 of 2

Subject: Invitation to UC LEAF Networking LunchDate: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 3:37:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: LEAF-‐NSF Grant Staff (leafstaf)To: Whitcome, Katherine (whitcoke)

Dear Katherine, Last week you received an email invitation from President Ono for the launch of UC LEAF (Leadership,Empowerment and Advancement of Women STEM Faculty), a new NSF-‐sponsored program at UC. The goal of LEAF is to increase diversity through the recruitment, retention, development, andadvancement of women faculty in the STEM disciplines. We are writing today to encourage you to attend the launch for UC LEAF at 9:00am on Monday, April8th at the Great Hall in Tangeman University Center (TUC). We would also like to invite you personallyto a networking luncheon with other women faculty in STEM and several community leadersfollowing the keynote address from Dr. Scott E. Page. The luncheon will take place in Room 400A atTUC from 11:30am 1:30pm. The goal of this luncheon will be to introduce UC¹s women STEM faculty to one another and to ourLEAF leadership team, including myself and co-‐Associate Directors Dr. Rachel Kallen and Dr. StacieHolloway. In addition to having the opportunity to meet one another, we have an esteemed panel ofUC women who will share their experiences and discuss their hopes and expectations for what LEAFcan achieve. These panelists include:

o Dr. Sandra DegenProfessor and Interim Chair, Department of Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry, & Microbiology

o Barbara RintoDirector, UC Women¹s Center

o Dr. Margaret HansonAssociate University Dean, The Graduate School; Professor, Department of Physics

o Robin MartinAssociate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion

o Dr. Monica MitchellAssociate Professor of Pediatrics (CCHMC) and Psychology; Co-‐Director, CommunityEngagement Core; Co-‐Director of INNOVATIONS

We hope that you will be able to join us on the 8th. Your RSVP is requested by March 29,2013. ToRSVP, please click here. Thank you and best wishes,

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BXB7TTV

of 2

Dr. Melanie CushionUC LEAF Program DirectorProfessor and Associate Chair for Research, Department of Internal Medicine

Monday, June 17, 2013 1:12:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Page 1 of 1

Subject: Invitation to UC LEAF Workshop With Dr. Scott E. PageDate: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:13:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: LEAF-‐NSF Grant Staff (leafstaf)To: Gudmundsdottir, Anna (gudmunad)

Dear Anna, Recently, you received an email invitation from President Ono for the launch of UC LEAF (Leadership,Empowerment and Advancement of Women STEM Faculty), a new NSF-‐sponsored program at UC. The goal of LEAF is to support the recruitment, advancement, and retention of women faculty in STEMand, more generally, to create a culture at UC that is inclusive for all. We are writing today to encourage you to attend the launch for UC LEAF at 9:00am on Monday, April8th at the Great Hall in Tangeman University Center (TUC). We would also like to personally inviteyou to a workshop with Dr. Scott E. Page following his keynote address. The workshop will take placein Room 400C at TUC from 11:30am 3:30pm. Lunch will be provided. The workshop will focus on therole of diversity in achieving the academic goals of UC and the broader mission of UC2019. We are inviting you to this workshop because you have been identified as a leader within youracademic unit. Accordingly, we see you as being a key partner in advancing the mission of LEAF. Yourparticipation in the workshop will not be associated with any subsequent work after the event. Rather, our hope is that you will leave the workshop more informed about the LEAF program and theimportant role that diversity plays within our university community, and that you will take thisinformation back to your unit to serve as an agent of change. Your RSVP is requested by March 29, 2013. To RSVP, please click here. Thank you and best wishes for the end of the semester, Dr. Melanie CushionUC LEAF Program DirectorProfessor and Associate Chair for Research, Department of Internal Medicine

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BN2TLLS

Date: 04/02/13Media Contact: Katie Pence, 513-558-4561 Patient Info: Scott Page's talk is free and open to the

public. For more information on UC LEAF or the event, visit www.uc.edu/orgs/ucleaf.

UC LEAF Program, Promoting Diversity, Officially Launches April 8 Last fall, an interdisciplinary team at the University of Cincinnati (UC), led by President Santa Ono, PhD, Melanie Cushion, PhD, Rachel Kallen, PhD, Stacie Furst-Holloway, PhD, Urmila Ghia, PhD, Steve Howe, PhD, and Monica Mitchell, PhD, received a $3.7 million grant from the National Science Foundation’s ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Program. The grant supports the university’s efforts to increase diversity, specifically as it relates to women in the science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, disciplines. Now, the group, named Leadership, Empowerment and Advancement of Women in Stem Faculty (LEAF), is officially celebrating its launch with an event being held from 9 to 11 a.m. April 8 in Tangeman University Center’s Great Hall. The event will feature opening remarks from Ono and Cushion with a presentation from guest speaker Scott Page, Leonid Hurwicz Collegiate Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science and Economics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and diversity expert. The day will also include a leadership workshop and a women in STEM faculty luncheon. "We’re very excited about our official launch and the opportunity to celebrate and build upon LEAF initiatives that are currently being planned or are already in the works,” says Cushion, associate chair of research and professor in the division of infectious diseases. Cushion says that 44 percent of UC faculty members are women but that women faculty members are greatly underrepresented in STEM. "Further, as academic rank increases, the representation of women in STEM declines and women are often absent at the professor rank in the STEM disciplines,” she adds. "With opportunities provided by the LEAF grant, we hope to improve the situation for not only women but other minorities in these fields.” One example of an initiative in existence that Cushion hopes to expand is the "Ready, Set, Go” workshop series, held monthly to support faculty members. Speakers discuss topics to help junior faculty jump-start their careers, and topics range from developing a mentoring relationship to building a lab and developing a research funding revenue. Mid- and senior-career workshops are in the planning stage. Cushion says a major focus for LEAF is retaining enterprising minds and supporting a cycle of growth and mentorship in all levels of the career cycle. "We want our junior faculty being mentored in their first year to begin training to be mentors in their second year, keeping the cycle going,” she says, adding that a free-standing center is also a future goal. "Personal attention is important for inspiring people and helping them meet their goals. We also hope to start learning communities for women faculty members in the STEM areas to troubleshoot problems and support one another.” Additionally, Cushion says the grant requires the LEAF team to evaluate the programs to ensure satisfaction for faculty members and to help them create policies and best practices for the entire UC community. "Overall, we hope that this grant will help us change the culture and improve how we recruit, retain and support our diverse

Page 1 of 2http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/22276/

http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/22276/

faculty,” Cushion says.

Page 2 of 2http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/22276/

http://healthnews.uc.edu/news/?/22276/

UC LEAF Launch Event April 8, 2013 9:00 a.m.

Tangeman University Center Great Hall

Sponsored by: UC LEAF The Office of the President The Office of the Provost The UC Graduate School The Office of the Dean,

UC College of Medicine

Agenda

9:00 a.m. Welcome President Santa Ono 9:15 a.m. Introduction of UC LEAF Program Director Dr. Melanie T. Cushion 9:30 a.m. Keynote Dr. Scott E. Page 11:00 a.m. Program concludes

Keynote Speaker: Scott E. Page, Ph.D.

Scott Page researches how diversity improves performance and decision making, when ‘diversity’ means what we look like on the outside, rather than what we look like within—the tools and abilities that make each of us unique. Groups made up of intelligent people who are inwardly diverse—that is, who have different perspectives, mindsets and ways of solving problems—can make more accurate predictions and solve problems more effectively than groups of ‘experts.’ v Leonid Hurwicz Collegiate Professor

of complex systems, political science and economics, University of Michigan

v Author, The Difference, Complex Adaptive Systems, and Diversity and Complexity

v External faculty member, Santa Fe Institute

v Senior research scientist, Institute for Social Research, U of Michigan

v Director, Center for the Study of Complex Systems, U of Michigan

v Fellow, Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Sciences

NSF ADVANCE -‐ IT

For many decades, an increasing number of women have obtained STEM doctoral degrees, however, women, particularly women of color, continue to be significantly underrepresented in almost all STEM academic positions. Women's advancement to senior professorial ranks and leadership roles is a concern in all fields. The underrepresentation of women is also a critical issue for the nation, at large, as it needs to develop a globally competitive and diverse workforce increases. NSF ADVANCE – Institutional Transformation (IT) grants are awarded to support innovative and systemic organizational approaches to transform institutions of higher education in ways that will increase the participation and advancement of women in STEM academic careers. These highly competitive awards support comprehensive programs for institution-‐wide change.

UC LEAF

The University of Cincinnati is committed to providing an environment that promotes the advancement and well-‐being of faculty across all departments. The mission of LEAF is to ensure that these opportunities extend to women faculty in the STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) by transforming the culture of the University into one that embraces and champions equity for women STEM scientists. Our vision is to create a continuous pipeline that integrates bottom up initiatives targeted to women faculty, top down leadership reform, and advocacy and accountability initiatives with programming and policy change that will provide the sustainable support system necessary to develop women STEM faculty to their fullest potential.

UC LEAF Initiatives

v Improve pathways for women, including women of color, faculty in STEM by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement

v Transform the climate for STEM

faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress and equity, resulting in an inclusive culture.

v Creating interdependence by enabling

sustainable dynamic institutional practice and policy through the Accountability and Advocacy Council.

v Social Science research on climate and

transformation of policy and reform, as expressed through message linguistics, subjective experiences, and social networks.

UC LEAF Leadership Team Santa Ono, Ph.D., Principle Investigator President, University of Cincinnati

Melanie T. Cushion, Ph.D. UCLEAF Program Director

Professor, College of Medicine

Rachel W. Kallen, Ph.D. UC LEAF Associate Program Director

Assistant Professor, McMicken College of Arts & Sciences

Stacie Furst-‐Holloway, Ph.D.

UC LEAF Associate Program Director Assistant Professor, McMicken College of

Arts & Sciences

Steven R. Howe, Ph.D. UC LEAF Internal Evaluator

Professor, McMicken College of Arts & Sciences

Monica Mitchell, Ph.D.

UC LEAF Director of Diversity Initiatives Associate Professor, CCHMC and

McMicken College of Arts & Sciences

Urmila Ghia, Ph.D. Professor, College Engineering & Applied

Sciences

Upcoming UC LEAF Events

Ready Set Go! Workshops: Mentoring/Career Guidance Joel Tsevat, M.D. Professor, Internal Medicine Co-‐Director, Center for Clinical & Translational Science & Training Thursday, April 11, 2013: 9-‐11:00a.m. The Paper Trail George S. Deepe, Jr., M.D. Professor, Internal Medicine Editor, Infection and Immunity Thursday, May 9, 2013: 9-‐11:00a.m. Visiting Scholars Workshop Conflict and Negotiation with Catherine Morrison, Ph.D. Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Contact UC LEAF

E-‐mail: [email protected] UC LEAF Office: (513) 556-‐ 1654 Website: uc.edu/orgs/ucleaf

Building Functionally Diverse Departments Mission: Diversity must lie at the core of your mission not at the end of a laundry list. Logic: The Diversity Journey

Level 1: Moral (philosophical) Level 2: Equality (political) Level 3: Fairness (legal) Level 4: Larger Pool of Talent Level 5: Synergies, New Perspectives, the ``Problem of Problems’’ Level 6: Restructuring

Climate: People Supporters: Give action items Agnostics: Work to get buy in Opponents: (see logic above)

Allies: identify and include

Numbers: Internal and External How diverse is your department? How diverse is the field? How can you improve the pipeline?

Status Quo: Implicit/Institutional Bias

Admissions Hiring Teaching Colloquia Mentoring

Implementation:

Concrete Goals and Timelines Incubate Broadcast (see Climate) Evaluate Skin in the Game

Ten Concrete Steps to Diversify Your Department (Courtesy Robert Sellers University of Michigan)

1. Identify and meet with your Rackham Diversity Allies and discuss where things are with your

department. Work together to develop a plan of action.

2. Appoint a committee to develop a diversity plan for the department. Make sure that service on this committee counts. Provide the committee with a timeline to develop a plan.

3. Investigate whether your SROP students are applying and/or being admitted to your program. If not, consider providing automatic admittance to those students whose SROP advisor recommends admittance.

4. Identify 1 or 2 undergraduate departments with whom you could potentially partner. Contact the chair of these departments and set up a meeting to discuss how you could develop a mutually-beneficial partnership. Looking at your own alumni of color is a good place to start.

5. Ask all faculty in the department to use their own personal faculty connections to identify promising undergraduate students of color at other institutions who may be interested in graduate school.

6. Provide funds for faculty who are visiting other schools for brown bags and other talks to stay an extra day and meet with promising students of color about possibly attending UM.

7. Ask all faculty in the department to use their own personal faculty connections to identify promising graduate students and post docs of color at other institutions who will be on the academic job market in the next year or two.

8. Create a position request for faculty doing research in diversity-related areas within your field and/or who have a track-record of mentoring students of color.

9. Create a committee of faculty whose job it is to search for existing talented faculty of color who might be recruited to UM. PFIP funds may be used to support such a position.

10. Utilize existing post-doctoral programs such as those in National Center for Institutional Diversity (NCID), the President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, and the Michigan Society of Fellows as a potential source for recruiting and mentoring future faculty of color in your department.

Project Governance: The Awardee will ensure that an efficient and effective project governing structure is in place throughout the award period to support all critical or significant project activities. The Awardee will develop and submit to the cognizant program officer within three months of the start date of the award a project organization chart and management plan including the following components:

A) A project implementation and management team (project team): The project team is responsible for the implementation of critical and significant project activities, coordinating the project’s internal and external evaluation, and the day-to-day project management. The project team will likely include the PI and co-PIs as well as other staff. The project team may include individuals from the institution that will support the record keeping and financial management of the project.

1. Project Implementation and Management Team. The Leadership Team will include the Principal Investigator, UC President Santa Ono; Program Director, Professor Melanie T. Cushion (Dept. Internal Medicine, College of Medicine; Research Career Scientist, VAMC); Associate Program Directors, Professors Rachel Kallen and Stacie Furst-Holloway (Dept. Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences); Professor Monica Mitchell (Depts. Psychology and Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center) with Professors Sandra Degen (Depts. Molecular Genetics and Pediatrics, UC and CCHMC), Urmila Ghia (Dept. Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences), Valerie Hardcastle (Depts. Philosophy and Psychology, Coll. of A&S) and Steven Howe (Dept. Psychology). Drs. Cushion, Kallen, Furst-Holloway, Mitchell, and Howe will meet at least twice monthly, weekly if necessary, to discuss the progress of the programming, challenges, and resolutions. They will be responsible for advising on the development of programs and initiatives of the grant. At their meetings, project progress will be discussed and performance of the focus areas of the grant will be monitored. Administrative support will be provided by a full time administrative coordinator. In addition, the leadership team will meet with the evaluation and research teams regularly to receive feedback on the progress of various programs of the grant. The Program Director will report to the PI each month and provide a summary of the activities during that month. Their roles are described below:

a. Principal Investigator. University of Cincinnati President Santa Ono. • Provides institutional leadership and commitment, as well as a top

level of accountability • Disseminates goals and objectives of the UC NSF ADVANCE

award (hereby, UC LEAF) at the highest leadership levels, internally and externally, to ensure high visibility and recognition of the program.

• Personifies the principles of the proposal in all meetings and networking opportunities.

• Ensures all involved academic units comply with the Top-down and Bottom-up initiatives.

• Works with the Leadership Team to ensure the sustainability of UC LEAF by supporting proposed and new initiatives from the Office of the President.

b. Program Director. Melanie T. Cushion, Ph.D. Professor, Research Career Scientist, VAMC.

• Directs all programming and oversees the budget. • Invites senior faculty to present workshops and participate on

panels • Responds to evaluation data about events to prepare effective and

timely programming for faculty at all ranks in the STEM disciplines • Oversees and represents UC LEAF to all constituents, especially

those at the College of Medicine • Works with the Program Coordinator to assign tasks and track

Projects c. Associate Program Director 1. Rachel W. Kallen, Ph.D., Assistant

Professor. • Provides input on project’s progress and monitors performance of

the goals of the award • Identifies and recruits various visiting scholars and best practice

speakers to come to campus and share their expertise with UC faculty, particularly women STEM faculty.

• Prepares Interim Progress Reports and Annual Reports with the other Associate Program Director and the Program Coordinator

• Provides oversight to the Program Coordinator on a daily basis • Develops and implements the Mid- and Senior Level Workshop

series • As Co-Director of the Social Science Research, is responsible for

directing the completion of the social sciences studies and contributing to the existing literature within the field by submitting findings of the proposed research and ADVANCE programs for publication and presentation in scientific journals and national conference proceedings

d. Associate Program Director 2. Stacie Furst-Holloway, Ph.D., Associate Professor

• Provides input on project’s progress and monitors performance of the goals of the award

• Identifies and recruits various visiting scholars and best practice speakers to come to campus and share their expertise with UC faculty, particularly women STEM faculty.

• Prepares Interim Progress Reports and Annual Reports with the other Associate Program Director and the Program Coordinator

• Develops and implements the Learning Communities • Provides input on organizational management of the projects • As Co-Director of the Social Science Research, is responsible for

directing the completion of the social sciences studies and contributing to the existing literature within the field by submitting findings of the proposed research and ADVANCE programs for publication and presentation in scientific journals and national conference proceedings

e. Director of Diversity Initiatives. Monica Mitchell, Ph.D., Assistant Professor

• Provides input on project’s progress and monitors performance of the goals of the award, especially as they relate to STEM women faculty of color

• Provides input for programming for STEM women faculty of color • Establishes the topics and timing of events, invites under

represented faculty to present workshops and participate on panels • Provides outreach to STEM women faculty of color • Interacts with senior women of color faculty and administration to

achieve goals of UC LEAF f. Internal Evaluator. Steven Howe, Ph.D., Professor

• Provides input on project’s progress and monitors performance of the goals of the award, with the focus on the goals of the internal evaluation requirements

• Prepares Evaluation sections of the Interim Progress Reports and Annual Reports

• Oversees the budget with the Program Director • Presents the logic model to Academic Unit heads • Holds workshops for Best Practices

g. Program Coordinator. Nancie Ehlert, MSP • Provides broad-‐based administrative support for the UC LEAF

ADVANCE Office, the ADVANCE Leadership Team and Committees and ensures the day to day management of UC LEAF activities, programs and evaluation.

• Provides resources on programming; uses NSF indicator data and research being done on gender and climate to generate reports to NSF and disseminate results to the University community

• Collects and disseminates best practices developed at UC and elsewhere.

• Manages correspondence and verbal inquiries, prepares presentation materials and manages and coordinates the logistics of meetings and larger programming events

• Prepares the publicity documents for ADVANCE UC LEAF and maintains the UC LEAF website and other dissemination tools

B) An internal steering committee or internal advisory committee (ISC or IAC): The project PI and co-PIs should serve on the ISC or IAC. Other members should include faculty as well as key administrators and staff who will be impacted by the activities or who will be providing resources or services to the project. ISCs or IACs typically meet monthly or quarterly during the project period, depending on the complexity of the project and the size of the project team. The Internal Advisory Committee is chaired by Prof. Urmila Ghia (Co-I), and consists of Professors Kay Kinoshita (Professor and Department Head, Physics), Shuk-Mein Ho (Chair, Environmental Health), Dr. Tom Boat (Vice President for Health Affairs; Dean, College of Medicine), Professor Teik Lim (Dean, College of Engineering and Applied Science), Kristi Nelson, Ph.D., Interim Vice Provost for Academic Personnel), President Santa Ono (PI), Professor Valerie Hardcastle (Chair of the Advocacy and Advisory Committee), and Prof. Sandra Degen (Chair of the External Advisory Committee). Professors Cushion, Kallen, Furst-Holloway, and Howe all attend these quarterly meetings. Administrative support for organization and scheduling is supplied by the Program Coordinator. Two IAC meetings have been held to date.

C) An external advisory committee (EAC): The EAC should be chaired by the chief executive officer of the institution or equivalent. Membership should include diverse individuals with expertise related to the project activities who can objectively review the project and provide feedback which can be used to make improvements to the project. The project PI (unless also the CEO), co-PIs, project team and consultants to the project should not serve on the EAC. EACs typically meet once a year during the project period.

The External Advisory Committee will be chaired by Prof. Sandra Degen, who was the Vice President for Research at the University of Cincinnati and is currently the Interim Chair for Molecular Genetics at UC. She brings community contacts obtained during her tenure as the VP for Research that will be especially important for the success of the UC LEAF goals. Other members include Virginia Valian (Distinguished Professor, Psychology, Hunter College), Nora Zorich, ( Vice President, P&G, retired; independent consultant), Stephanie Goodwin (Program Director, LEADER Consortium-ADVANCE, Wright State University), Peggy Layne (AdvanceVT Program Director), and Laura Schweitzer (President, Union Graduate College).

Accountability and Advocacy Council (AAC): The purpose of the AAC, chaired by Professor Valerie Hardcastle, includes the negotiation and reconciliation of Top-down and Bottom-up initiatives and associated problems; assessment of collected data and conclusions of the Research Team. The AAC also serves as an additional layer of advisory guidance to members of the Leadership Team. Members include Steve Strakowski, M.D., Chair of the Dept. Psychiatry and Senior Vice Dean of Research, the College of Medicine; Karen Faaborg,Ph.D. former Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and former Executive Vice President; Tia Solomon,Ph.D., Assistant Professor Psychology and Neurology, College of Arts and Sciences; Fred Beyette,Ph.D., Professor, College of Engineering and Applied Science; Margaret Hanson, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the Graduate School and Professor, College of Arts and Sciences.

Organizational Chart of the NSF ADVANCE IT UC LEAF

PI

Pres. Santa Ono, Ph.D.

Accountability and Advocacy Commi<ee Valerie Hardcastle, Ph.D.

Evalua@on Steve Howe, Ph.D. (Internal)

Sarah Woodruff, Ph.D. (External)

Research Rachel W. Kallen, Stacie Furst-‐

Holloway, Steve Howe

Program Coordinator

Nancie Ehlert, MSP

Program Director

Melanie T. Cushion, Ph.D.

Associate Program Directors

Rachel W. Kallen, Ph.D. Stacie Furst-‐Holloway, Ph.D.

Internal Advisory Commi<ee

Urmila Ghia, Ph.D.

External Advisory Commi<ee

Sandra Degen, Ph.D.

Diversity Ini@a@ves

Monica J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

Ready Set Go: Hiring: Effective Interviewing, Evaluation

and AfterwardsOctober 11, 2012

Center for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning (CET&L)

www.uc.edu/cetl Email: [email protected]

Report generated: June 26, 2013

RSG: Hiring, October 2012

This is the assessment results from your program. It shows strengths and areas of improvement by measuring

participant confidence in skills/material presented, and the probability of using the program materials/skills

in their professional lives here at UC. This information can be useful in improving our programs and ensuring

that our programs meet the needs of our audience. The following tables and graphs identify the demographic

characteristics and question responses of the 6 participants who attended your session and completed an as-

sessment.

Academic rank of program participants.

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

0 0 0

4

0 0 0

2

Rank Count

Graduate Assistant 0

Adjunct Faculty 0

Educator 0

Assistant Professor 4

Associate Professor 0

Full Professor 0

Professor Emeritus 0

Other 2

Total Responses 6

100% completed this question.

1


Why did you participate in this program?R

espo

nses

2

4

6

8

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

0 0

2

1 1 1

5

0

Response Count

Teaching Assessment 0

Teaching Quandry 0

Research Interest 2

Pedagogical Interest 1

Colleague Suggestion 1

Interdisciplinary Conversations 1

Career Development 5

Other 0

Total Responses 6


2


When do you intend to apply the information learned in this

program?

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

4

0 0

2

0 0

Response Count

Immediately 4

Within the current semester 0

Next semester 0

The next time it is relevant 2

I don’t know 0

Never 0

Total Responses 6


3


As a result of this program I learned . . .

The most common responses to this open-ended question included:

• The best way to find the right candidates

• How to evaluate candidates objectively

Other comments from program participants. . .

• The discussion with the activity was great

• Consider making time for a discussion of everyone’ past real world experience

4


Program Content & Outcomes

Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*

The outcomes of the program were clearly defined 6 0% 0% 0% 17% 83% 4.8 0.4

The stated learning outcomes were achieved 6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

The amount of material covered was appropriatefor the time allotted

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

The resources (e.g., handouts, websites, etc.) werea useful supplement to the program content

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

The program content was easy to understand 6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

The activities/discussions were helpful in learningthe subject matter

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

The program provided me with the tools andstrategies to improve my effectiveness and effi-ciency

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

I was able to engage in interdisciplinary conversa-tions during this program

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

My goals and expectations for this workshop weremet

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

I intend to share the knowledge I acquired fromthis program with others

6 0% 0% 0% 17% 83% 4.8 0.4

I would recommend this program to a colleague 6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

I would attend another CET&L pro-gram/workshop

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

Note: For explanation of values in this table see p. 5.

7


Supplementary Questions Specific to this Program

Participant confidence in the material addressed at the program

Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I understand the importance of staffing the labwith the right people

6 0% 0% 0% 33% 67% 4.7 0.5

I can differentiate between employees roles, in-cluding postdocs, and students

6 0% 0% 17% 17% 67% 4.5 0.8

I am able to craft appropriate interview ques-tions

6 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 4.5 0.5

I can effectively evaluate candidates 6 0% 0% 17% 33% 50% 4.3 0.8

I am knowledgeable about the University ofCincinnati’s hiring policies and procedures

5 0% 40% 0% 40% 20% 3.4 1.3

I can plan for a new hire orientation 6 0% 17% 17% 50% 17% 3.7 1.0


8


How useful this information was to participants

Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will work to staff the lab with the right peo-ple

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

I intend to differentiate the roles of my em-ployees, including postdocs and students

6 0% 0% 17% 33% 50% 4.3 0.8

I will employ appropriate interview questionsduring the hiring process

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

I will use the techniques presented during to-day’s program to evaluate candidates

6 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

I will apply the University of Cincinnati’s hir-ing policies and procedures during the hiringprocess

6 0% 0% 40% 20% 40% 4.0 1.0

I will plan a new hire orientation 6 0% 0% 67% 17% 17% 3.5 0.8


9

Ready Set Go: Setting the Tone of Your LabNovember 8, 2012




RSG: Lab Tone, Nov. 2012





characteristics and question responses of the 12 participants who attended your session and completed an

assessment.


Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

10

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

1 10

8

01

0 0

Rank Count


Adjunct Faculty 1

Educator 0



Full Professor 1


Other 0

Total Responses 12


1



espo

nses

5

10

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

0 0

43

1 1

11

0

Response Count


Teaching Quandry 0

Research Interest 4





Other 0

Total Responses 12


2



program?

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

5

1 1

3

0 0

Response Count

Immediately 5


Next semester 1


I don’t know 0

Never 0

Total Responses 10

83.33% completed this question.

3




• How to deal with certain situations

• Creating awareness tools

• Better management for my lab

• There is a lot to consider for lab tone


• Consider providing slides to participants.

• Consider using worksheets interspersed with powerpoint slides.

• Consider providing more time for discussion.

• Consider providing case studies or vignettes.

• Consider examples for non-lab based research groups (e.g. geology, etc.)

4



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*




12 8% 0% 17% 67% 8% 3.7 1.0


12 0% 8% 8% 75% 8% 3.8 0.7



12 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 4.2 0.5


11 0% 0% 18% 73% 9% 3.9 0.5


11 0% 9% 27% 45% 18% 3.7 0.9


11 0% 9% 9% 73% 9% 3.8 0.8


11 0% 0% 36% 55% 9% 3.7 0.6



11 0% 0% 18% 55% 27% 4.1 0.7


7




Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I have managerial style consistent with mypersonality

10 0% 0% 20% 70% 10% 3.9 0.6

I can integrate different managerial aspects(i.e. policies, ethics, operations) into an iden-tifiable lab culture

10 0% 10% 30% 60% 0% 3.5 0.7

I can integrate professionalism in all aspectsof lab conduct

10 0% 0% 20% 80% 0% 3.8 0.4

I understand how to mange the financial as-pects of my lab

10 0% 10% 50% 30% 10% 3.4 0.8

I can formulate a 5-year plan for my labora-tory

10 0% 0% 20% 80% 0% 3.8 0.4

I can recognize when my lab is becoming dys-functional

10 0% 0% 30% 70% 0% 3.7 0.5

if my lab becomes dysfunctional, I can formu-late intervention strategies

10 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 3.5 0.5


8



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will employ managerial style consistent withmy personality

9 0% 0% 11% 67% 22% 4.1 0.6

I will integrate different managerial aspects(i.e. policies, ethics, operations) into an in-dentifiable lab culture

9 0% 0% 22% 78% 0% 3.8 0.4

I will practice professionalism in all aspects oflab conduct

9 0% 0% 0% 67% 33% 4.3 0.5

I will use the material presented during to-day’s program when managing the financialaspects of my lab

9 0% 0% 44% 44% 11% 3.7 0.7

I will formulate a 5-year strategic plan for mylaboratory

9 0% 0% 11% 67% 22% 4.1 0.6

I will use the intervention strategies presentedin today’s session to address issues that arisein my lab

9 0% 0% 11% 78% 11% 4.0 0.5


9

Ready Set Go: Personnel/Conflict ManagementDecember 13, 2012




RSG: Personnel/Conflict Management, December 2012






assessment.


Res

pons

es

2

4

6

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

0

1 1

4

3

0 0

1

Rank Count


Adjunct Faculty 1

Educator 1



Full Professor 0


Other 1

Total Responses 10


1



espo

nses

2

4

6

8

10

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

01

2 2

0

3

8

1

Response Count


Teaching Quandry 1

Research Interest 2





Other 1

Total Responses 10


2



program?

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

10

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

8

2

0 0 0 0

Response Count

Immediately 8


Next semester 0


I don’t know 0

Never 0

Total Responses 10


3




• Effective communication

• Records keeping

• How to assess personal performance

• Improving my mentoring skills


• “I really enjoyed this program”

• “There was great participation from other participants”

4



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*




8 0% 0% 12% 75% 12% 4.0 0.5


8 0% 0% 25% 50% 25% 4.0 0.8



8 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 4.2 0.5


8 0% 0% 50% 25% 25% 3.8 0.9


8 0% 0% 12% 38% 50% 4.4 0.7


8 0% 0% 25% 62% 12% 3.9 0.6


8 0% 12% 0% 75% 12% 3.9 0.8



8 0% 0% 0% 62% 38% 4.4 0.5


7




Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I can articulate how personnel and perfor-mance issues are located within a broaderframework of job performance.

9 0% 0% 22% 56% 22% 4.0 0.7

I can identify the most appropriate places tofocus imrovement efforts.

9 0% 0% 11% 78% 11% 4.0 0.5

I can assess your own lab’s performacne eval-uation process relative to the model presentedin the workshop in order to identify and im-plement specific changes.

9 0% 0% 44% 44% 11% 3.7 0.7

I can frame messages about the lab and itsworkers to better manage the discourse withinthe lab that is critical to maintaining a pro-ductive environment

9 0% 0% 22% 44% 33% 4.1 0.8

I know how to practice introducing perfor-mance issues to individual employees so thatyou can be comfortable when it comes timefor you to discuss performance problems witha member of your staff

9 0% 0% 11% 78% 11% 4.0 0.5


8



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will choose the mose appropriate places tofocus your improvement efforts

9 0% 0% 0% 89% 11% 4.1 0.3

I will assess my own lab’s performace evalu-ation process relative to the model presentedin the workshop in order to identify specificchanges to implement

9 0% 0% 11% 56% 33% 4.2 0.7

I will frame messages about the lab andits workders to better manage the discorusewithin the lab that is critical to maintaining aproductive environment

9 0% 0% 0% 78% 22% 4.2 0.4

I will practice introducing performance issuesto individual employees so that you can becomfortable when it comes time for me to dis-cuss performance problems with a member ofmy staff.

9 0% 0% 0% 78% 22% 4.2 0.4


9

Ready Set Go: Funding ResearchJanuary 10, 2013



Report generated: May 2, 2013

RSG–Funding Research





characteristics and question responses of the 21 out of 25 total participants who attended your session and

completed an assessment.


Res

pons

es

5

10

15

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

1 10

12

0 0 0

7

Rank Count


Adjunct Faculty 1

Educator 0



Full Professor 0


Other 7

Total Responses 21


1



espo

nses

5

10

15

20

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

0 0

19

0

31

16

1

Response Count


Teaching Quandry 0

Research Interest 19





Other 1

Total Responses 21


2



program?

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

10

12

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

2

9

1

6

2

0

Response Count

Immediately 2


Next semester 1


I don’t know 2

Never 0

Total Responses 20

95.24% completed this question.

3




• There is a lot of funding available for faculty

• About central sources of support

• About resources for faculty support

• Types of awards

• Eligibility for awards

4



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*




18 0% 0% 10% 60% 30% 4.3 0.6


17 0% 0% 20% 60% 20% 4.0 0.6



17 0% 0% 10% 50% 50% 4.4 0.6


18 0% 0% 20% 60% 30% 4.1 0.7


18 10% 0% 40% 40% 10% 3.5 0.9


18 0% 0% 20% 50% 30% 4.2 0.7


18 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 4.5 0.5



18 0% 10% 0% 30% 60% 4.5 0.8


7




Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will aplly to sources of laboratory/researchfunding identified during this program

17 0% 10% 20% 40% 40% 4.1 0.9

I indend to apply for NIH funding 16 0% 0% 30% 20% 40% 4.1 0.9

I intend to apply for NSF funding available tome

15 0% 10% 30% 30% 30% 3.7 1.0

I will apply for an internal UC grant 16 0% 0% 20% 40% 40% 4.2 0.8

I will use the information I learn about ex-ternal grant review when I apply for my nextgrant

15 0% 0% 10% 30% 60% 4.5 0.7

I will integrate my knowledge of direct: in-direct cost when preparing my next internalgrant

16 10% 0% 10% 40% 40% 4.1 1.1


8



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I can identify sources of laboratory/researchfunding

17 0% 0% 10% 60% 30% 4.2 0.6

I am aware of different types of NIH funding 16 0% 0% 20% 50% 30% 4.1 0.7

I know about the types of NSF funding avail-able to me

17 0% 0% 40% 40% 20% 3.9 0.8

I understand the internal UC grant review pro-cess

16 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 3.9 0.7

I understand the external review process ofgrants

16 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 3.9 0.7

I comprehend the concept of direct: indirectconst

16 10% 0% 30% 40% 20% 3.8 1.1


9

Ready Set Go: Time ManagementFebruary 14, 2013




RSG–Time Management








Res

pons

es

1

2

3

4

5

6

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

0

3

0

3

2

0 0

2

Rank Count


Adjunct Faculty 3

Educator 0



Full Professor 0


Other 2

Total Responses 10


1



espo

nses

2

4

6

8

10

12

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

0 0

2

01

0

9

1

Response Count


Teaching Quandry 0

Research Interest 2





Other 1

Total Responses 10


2



program?

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

10

12

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

9

0 01

0 0

Response Count

Immediately 9


Next semester 0


I don’t know 0

Never 0

Total Responses 10


3




• Some tips on how to improve upon my ability to prioritize

• Training on management

• Leadership skills

• Recognizing this is a problem for me

• How to say “no”

• How to customize deadlines

• That honing in on these basic skills is foundational for success

• Personal professional development

• Skills to optimize time

4



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*




9 0% 0% 30% 40% 20% 3.9 0.8


8 0% 0% 40% 50% 10% 3.8 0.7



9 0% 0% 10% 40% 40% 4.3 0.7


9 0% 0% 0% 70% 30% 4.3 0.5


9 0% 20% 30% 20% 20% 3.4 1.1


9 0% 0% 0% 70% 30% 4.3 0.5


9 0% 0% 10% 40% 40% 4.3 0.7



9 0% 0% 10% 30% 60% 4.4 0.7


7




Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I can establish a time management plan 9 0% 0% 0% 90% 10% 4.1 0.3

I am able to set priorties. 9 0% 0% 0% 70% 30% 4.3 0.5

I have skills to successfully multi-task 9 0% 0% 0% 80% 20% 4.2 0.4

I can balance my work and family/life 8 0% 0% 50% 40% 10% 3.6 0.7

I know about methods of effective delegation. 8 0% 0% 40% 40% 20% 3.9 0.8

I can determine when and how to say no 8 0% 0% 20% 50% 20% 4.0 0.8


8



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will establish a time management plan 8 0% 0% 10% 60% 20% 4.1 0.6

I plan to use the material presented today toset priorities

8 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 4.5 0.5

I will use the skills presented during this work-shop to successfully multi-task

8 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 4.2 0.7

I intend to balance my work and family/life us-ing strategies presented during today’s work-shop.

8 0% 0% 10% 60% 20% 4.1 0.6

I will use methods of effective delegation. 8 0% 0% 20% 60% 10% 3.9 0.6

I will use the information presented today todetermine when and how to say no.

8 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 4.2 0.7


9

Ready Set Go:

Planning for Career AdvancementMarch 14, 2013




RSG: Planning for Career Advancement






assessment.


Res

pons

es

2

4

6

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

0 0 0

4 4

0 0

2

Rank Count


Adjunct Faculty 0

Educator 0



Full Professor 0


Other 2

Total Responses 10


1



espo

nses

2

4

6

8

10

12

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

0 0

2

01

0

9

0

Response Count


Teaching Quandry 0

Research Interest 2





Other 0

Total Responses 10


2



program?

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

4

1

0

3

2

0

Response Count

Immediately 4


Next semester 0


I don’t know 2

Never 0

Total Responses 10


3




• How to plan for career advancement

• Organization for advancement

• Tracks or opportunities for advancement

• Mentor ideas for advancement

4



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*




10 0% 0% 0% 10% 90% 4.9 0.3


10 0% 0% 10% 10% 80% 4.7 0.7



10 0% 0% 0% 20% 80% 4.8 0.4


10 0% 10% 10% 10% 70% 4.4 1.1


10 0% 0% 10% 20% 70% 4.6 0.7


10 0% 10% 10% 0% 80% 4.5 1.1


10 0% 0% 10% 10% 80% 4.7 0.7



10 0% 0% 0% 20% 80% 4.8 0.4


7




Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I can differentiate the unique functions of theunits within the medical campus.

8 0% 10% 10% 40% 40% 4.0 1.1

I understand the organization within each ofthe units within the medical campus

8 0% 10% 10% 20% 50% 4.1 1.1

I can build relationships with critical personel. 8 0% 0% 10% 40% 50% 4.4 0.7

I know about the faculty governing bod-ies/committees of UC

9 0% 0% 10% 40% 40% 4.3 0.7

I am able to distinguish the milestones neces-sary at teach level of career advancement

8 0% 0% 0% 40% 60% 4.6 0.5

I can develop a plan to reach the necessaymilestones for acareer development.

9 0% 0% 0% 30% 70% 4.7 0.5

I know the roles of the PI in the conduct ofethical research at UC

8 0% 0% 0% 10% 90% 4.9 0.4

I know the roles of the PI in grant manage-ment at UC.

8 0% 10% 0% 20% 60% 4.4 1.1


8



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will use the material from today’s workshopto differentiate the unique functions of theunits within the medical campus

9 0% 0% 20% 10% 70% 4.4 0.9

I will drawn upon my new understanding ofthe organization within each of these units.

8 0% 0% 20% 10% 60% 4.4 0.9

I intend to build relationships with criticalpersonnel.

9 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5.0 0.0

I will use the strategies presented to-day to identify the faculty governing bod-ies/committees of UC

8 0% 0% 20% 10% 60% 4.4 0.9

I plan to distinguish the milestones necessaryat each level of my career advancement.

8 0% 0% 0% 20% 80% 4.8 0.5

I will develop a plan to reach the necessarymilestones for career development

8 0% 0% 0% 10% 90% 4.9 0.4

I will use the information from today’s work-shop to conduct of ethical research at UC

9 0% 0% 10% 0% 90% 4.8 0.7

I will use the strategies from today’s workshopto manage my grants.

8 0% 0% 20% 10% 60% 4.4 0.9


9

Ready Set Go:

Mentoring & Career GuidanceApril 11, 2013




RSG–Mentoring & Career Guidance






assessment.


Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

0

2

0

2

1

0 0

6

Rank Count


Adjunct Faculty 2

Educator 0



Full Professor 0


Other 6

Total Responses 11


1



espo

nses

2

4

6

8

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

0 0

3 3

1

3

5

4

Response Count


Teaching Quandry 0

Research Interest 3





Other 4

Total Responses 11


2



program?

Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

10

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

7

10

12

0

Response Count

Immediately 7


Next semester 0


I don’t know 2

Never 0

Total Responses 11


3




• Understand the need for mentoring development

• Value of standard internal standards for mentoring

• Clear communication of expectations between mentors and mentees

• How to structure the communication process in mentoring relationship

• Periodically review the progress with the mentee

• Specific aspects of a good mentor-mentee relationship

• Mentor roles and responsibilities

• Mentee roles and responsibilities

4



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*




11 0% 20% 0% 50% 40% 4.0 1.1


11 0% 20% 10% 20% 50% 4.1 1.2



11 0% 20% 0% 10% 70% 4.4 1.2


10 0% 20% 0% 30% 50% 4.1 1.2


11 0% 10% 0% 30% 60% 4.5 0.9


11 0% 20% 10% 20% 50% 4.1 1.2


10 0% 20% 0% 20% 60% 4.2 1.2



11 0% 10% 10% 40% 50% 4.2 1.0


7




Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I can describe the relationship between menteeand mentor

11 0% 0% 10% 30% 60% 4.5 0.7

I understand the expectations of a mentoringrelationship

11 0% 0% 20% 30% 50% 4.4 0.8

I know the responsibilities of individuals en-gaged in a mentoring relationship

11 0% 10% 10% 30% 50% 4.3 1.0

I recognize potential missteps in the mentoringprocess

11 0% 10% 10% 40% 50% 4.2 1.0

I know strategies to avoid potential misstepsin a mentoring relationship

11 0% 10% 20% 40% 40% 4.0 1.0

I know about multiple sources where I can re-ceive career guidance

11 0% 20% 40% 30% 20% 3.5 1.0

I recognize when it is appropriate to becomea mentor

11 0% 10% 30% 40% 30% 3.8 1.0


8



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will modify my approach to mentoring re-lationships as a result of definitions providedduring this workshop

10 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 3.9 0.7

I will integrate the mentor/mentee responsi-bilities identified during this workshop into mymentoring relationship

10 0% 0% 20% 50% 30% 4.1 0.7

I intend to use the material from this work-shop to avoid potential missteps in my men-toring relationship

10 0% 0% 20% 40% 40% 4.2 0.8

I will draw upon multiple sources for careerguidance

10 0% 0% 30% 50% 20% 3.9 0.7

When the time is right, I will become a mentor 10 0% 0% 20% 40% 30% 4.1 0.8


9

Ready Set Go: The Paper TrailMay 9, 2013




RSG: Paper Trail, Spring 2013








Res

pons

es

2

4

6

8

10

12

Gradu

ate

Assist

ant

Adjunc

t Fac

ulty

Educa

tor

Assist

ant P

rofes

sor

Assoc

iate

Profes

sor

Full P

rofes

sor

Profes

sor E

mer

itus

Other

01

2

9

3

0 0

4

Rank Count


Adjunct Faculty 1

Educator 2



Full Professor 0


Other 4

Total Responses 19


1



espo

nses

5

10

15

Teac

hing

Assm

't

Teac

hing

Quand

ry

Resea

rch

Inte

rest

Pedag

ogica

l Inte

rest

Collea

gue

Sugge

stion

Inte

rdisc

. Con

vers

ation

s

Caree

r Dev

elopm

ent

Other

0 0

13

21

2

15

0

Response Count


Teaching Quandry 0

Research Interest 13





Other 0

Total Responses 19


2



program?

Res

pons

es

5

10

15

Imm

ediat

ely

With

in th

e cu

rrent

sem

este

r

Next s

emes

ter

The n

ext t

ime

it is r

eleva

nt

I don

't kno

wNev

er

14

3

01 1

0

Response Count

Immediately 14


Next semester 0


I don’t know 1

Never 0

Total Responses 19


3




• How to write a paper

• When to write a paper

• How to structure a paper

• To look at the college guidelines on authorship

• More concrete understanding of the process for writing and submitting papers

• How to submit a paper

• The importance of the letter to the editor

• Reading author’s guidelines

• How to handle rejection

• Where to submit a manuscript

•

Other comments by program participants. . .

• “This presenter was very effective and his style was very pleasant and helpful”

• “Great talk–learned a lot!”

4



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disgree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Mean

Score

Std

.Deviation*




19 0% 10% 0% 40% 60% 4.5 0.8


19 0% 0% 0% 30% 70% 4.7 0.5



19 0% 10% 10% 30% 60% 4.5 0.8


19 0% 10% 0% 40% 50% 4.4 0.8


19 0% 20% 30% 30% 30% 3.7 1.1


19 0% 10% 0% 40% 50% 4.4 0.8


19 0% 10% 10% 40% 50% 4.3 0.9



19 0% 0% 0% 30% 70% 4.7 0.5


7




Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I know when to write a paper 17 0% 0% 0% 60% 40% 4.4 0.5

I know who should be included as a co-author 17 0% 0% 10% 30% 60% 4.5 0.7

I can identify where to submit my articles be-cause I understand the journals in my field

17 0% 0% 10% 60% 40% 4.3 0.6

I recognize the importance of incorporatingnegative results into my paper

17 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 4.4 0.6

I can devise strategies for dealing with the re-jection of a manuscript

17 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 4.5 0.5

I can evaluate when to serve as a reviewer 17 0% 0% 10% 70% 20% 4.2 0.5

I know how to use my experience as a reviewerto better my own research writing

17 0% 0% 10% 50% 50% 4.4 0.6

I understand what editors will look for whenevaluating my manuscript

17 0% 0% 0% 60% 40% 4.4 0.5


8



Question Tota

lResp

onses

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Avera

geScore

Std

.Deviation*

I will use the strategies presented today to de-cide when it is best to write a paper

16 0% 0% 0% 60% 40% 4.4 0.5

I will use the information from this workshopto appropriately identify co-authors

16 0% 0% 10% 40% 50% 4.4 0.6

I will identify where to submit my articles be-cause I understand the journals in my field

16 0% 0% 10% 40% 40% 4.3 0.7

I intend to appropriately incorporate negativeresults into my papers

15 0% 0% 0% 60% 40% 4.4 0.5

I will use the strategies presented today whenresubmitting a manuscript

15 0% 0% 0% 40% 60% 4.6 0.5

I will use today’s workshop to evaluate whento serve as a reviewer

16 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 4.4 0.6

I intend to use my experience as a reviewer tobetter my own research writing

16 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 4.5 0.5

I will evaluate my manuscript using the tech-niques presented today

16 0% 0% 10% 40% 50% 4.4 0.6


9

214 registered 128 attended

Workshop Attendance Sheet

Ready, Set, Go: Effective Interviewing, Evaluation and Afterwards10/11/2012 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM

Attendee Name UC Dept. Position Email Address1 Dawn Oneill RES Research Programs Executive Director [email protected]

2 Kevin Haworth COM IM Cardiology Division Asst [email protected]

3 Joshua Magee COM Fam Med Research Research Asst [email protected]

4 Kelly Theisen A&S Chemistry Students Graduate Assistant [email protected] Laura Sagle A&S Chemistry Asst Professor [email protected] Shagufta Khan COM Pathology Clinical Asst Professor - Clin Geo [email protected]

7 Elizabeth Jean-Baptiste CECH Education Asst Professor - Field [email protected]

8 Vladislav Litosh A&S Chemistry Asst Professor - Research [email protected]

9 Alexandre Sousa A&S Physics Asst Professor (Prov)[email protected]

10 Yuet Kin Leung COM EH EGMT Division Asst Professor - Research [email protected]

11 Jenny TongCOM IM Endocrinology Division

Associate Professor - Clin Geo [email protected]

12 Deanna ArbleCOM IM Endocrinology Division

Post Doc Fellow [email protected]

13 Atsuo SasakiCOM IM Hematology/Oncology Division

Asst [email protected]

14 Pheruza Tarapore COM EH Epi-Bio Division Assoc [email protected]

15 Marcia Espinola RES Biosafety Biological Safety [email protected]

16 Xuefei Guo A&S Chemistry Post Docs Post Doc Fellow [email protected]

17 Sebastian Pollandt COM Neurosurgery Instructor - Clin [email protected]

18 Tony De FalcoCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Asst Professor - Aff [email protected]

Ready, Set, Go: Setting the Tone of Your Lab/Program11/8/2012 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM

Attendee Name UC Dept. Position Email Address



3 Laura Sagle A&S Chemistry Asst Professor [email protected]

4 Vladislav Litosh A&S Chemistry Asst Professor - Research [email protected]

5 Enass Abdel-hameedCOM IM Digestive Diseases Division

Post Doc [email protected]






9 Gail Jean Pyne-Geithman COM Neurosurgery Assoc Professor [email protected]


11 Patricia FulkersonCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty



13 Michael CraigCOM Physiology Graduate Programs

Graduate Assistant [email protected]

14 Sarah Anderson NA NA [email protected]

15 Sejal JainCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Asst Professor - Clin Aff [email protected]

16 Yan XuCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Assoc Professor - Research Aff [email protected]

17 Vikas Shingade A&S Chemistry Students Graduate Assistant [email protected]

18 Michael Davis A&S History Students Graduate Assistant [email protected]

19 Hong JiCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Asst Professor - Research Aff [email protected]

20 Andrew Herr COM Mol Gen Herr Lab Assoc Professor [email protected] Dylan Ward A&S Geology Asst Professor [email protected]

22 Vikram Kuppa CEAS - Materials Eng Asst [email protected]

23 Aimee BakerUniversity of Cincinnati Surgeons, Inc

Clinical Research Coordinator [email protected]



25 Ashish KumarCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Asst Professor - Clin [email protected]

26 Marie-Dominique FilippiCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty


27Balasubrahmanyam Addepalli

A&S Chemistry Research [email protected]

28 Artem BarskiCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Assistant Professor of [email protected]

29 Willie ClarkCtr of Coop Ed Research & Innovation

Asst Dir Academic [email protected]

30 Xiaoting Zhang COM Can/Cell Zhang Lab Asst Professor [email protected]

31 Tiina ReponenCOM EH Indstr Hygiene Reponen Lab

[email protected]

32 Andrew Czaja A&S Geology Asst Professor [email protected]

33 Ian PapautskyCEAS - Electronic & Computing Systems

Assoc Professor [email protected]

34 Liran OrenCOM Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery

Asst Professor - Research [email protected]

Ready, Set, Go: Personnel/conflict Management

12/13/2012 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM





3 Teresa CavanaughPharmacy Practice and Admin Sciences



5 Judy CainRES LAMS Husbandry Services

Sr Research Assistant [email protected]

6 Marcia Espinola RES Biosafety Biological Safety [email protected]






10 Andrew Herr COM Mol Gen Herr Lab Assoc Professor [email protected]

11 Xiaoting Zhang COM Can/Cell Zhang Lab Asst Professor [email protected]



13 Laura Sagle A&S Chemistry Asst Professor [email protected]

14Jennifer Lynn Adelman Brown

CEAS - Computer Eng Research Coordinator [email protected]

15 Virginia RussellDAAP School of Arch & Interior Design


16 Hong JiCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Asst Professor - Research Aff [email protected]

17 Florence Rothenberg COM IM Cardiology Division Associate Professor - Clin Geo [email protected]

18 Joshua Gross A&S Biological Sciences Asst Professor [email protected]

19 Carolyn LutzkoCOM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty

Assoc Professor - Field Svc [email protected]

20 Tiina ReponenCOM EH Indstr Hygiene Reponen Lab

[email protected]

21 Sarah Whitton A&S Psychology Asst [email protected]

22 Rina Mina COM IM Immunology Division Asst Prof Of Clin - Geo [email protected]

23 Hwa SonCOM Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery

Clinical Instructor - GME [email protected]

24 Amy ShahCOM Psychiatry Residency Train & AIDS Ed

Clinical Instructor - GME [email protected]

25 Bonita GordonCON Professional Studies Team

Director Academic [email protected]

26 Margaret Collins COM IM INF Smulian Lab Sr Research [email protected]



28 Leila Rodriguez Soto A&S Anthropology Asst Professor Prov [email protected]

29 Kevin Kellar UCBA Math Lab Mgr College Lab [email protected]

30 Maria Damen UCBA Writing Lab Mgr College [email protected]

Ready, Set, Go: Funding Your Research Program: the NIH and Other Funding Processes1/10/2013 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM



2 Emily Fischer DAAP School of Design Asst Professor - Visiting [email protected]

3 Gail Jean Pyne-Geithman COM Neurosurgery Assoc Professor [email protected] Brenda Milburn NA NA [email protected]

5 Senthilkumar Sadhasivam COM Anesthesiology Assoc Professor - Clin [email protected]



7 Vikas Shingade A&S Chemistry Students Graduate Assistant [email protected]

8Balasubrahmanyam Addepalli

A&S Chemistry Research [email protected]

9 Matia Solomon A&S Psychology Asst [email protected]

10 Laura Sagle A&S Chemistry Asst Professor [email protected] Aryay Finkelstein A&S Judaic Studies Asst Professor [email protected]


13 Xizhi Feng COM Pathology Askew Lab Post Doc Fellow [email protected]

14 Shauna Acquavita School of Social Work Asst [email protected]


16 La'trice Montgomery CECH Human Services Asst [email protected]

17 Prabir Bhattacharya CEAS - Computer Science [email protected]

18 Michael Tranter COM IM Cardiology Division Asst [email protected]

19 Katherine Whitcome A&S Anthropology Asst [email protected]

20Sundaram Murali Meenakshi

CEAS - Mechanical Eng Asst [email protected]

21 Eva Enkelmann A&S Geology Asst Professor [email protected]

22 Sadhna VermaCOM Radiology Body Imaging

Assoc Professor - Adj [email protected]

23 Mahyar Arefi DAAP School of Planning Assoc Professor [email protected]

24 Danilo Palazzo DAAP School of Planning [email protected]

25 LaSharon Mosley A&S Biological Sciences Assistant Professor - [email protected]

26 Ana Luisa KadekaroCOM Dermatology Abdel-Malek Lab

Asst Professor - [email protected]

27 Necati Kaval A&S Chemistry Research Associate [email protected]

28 Benjamin Passty COB Economics Asst Professor - [email protected]

29 Ashlee Hoffman CECH Human Services Graduate Assistant [email protected]

30 Jung-Min HongA&S Political Science Students




32 Kathleen Broomall Clermont Biology Asst Professor - Adj [email protected]

33 Kimberly Hasselfeld COM Orthopaedic Surgery Clin Research [email protected]

34 Daewoo HanCEAS - Electronic & Computing Systems

Post Doc Fellow [email protected]

35 Renee Hebbeler-Clark COM IM Pulmonary Division Asst Prof Of Clin - [email protected]

36 Jiajun Cui COM Can/Cell Zhang Lab Post Doc Fellow [email protected]

37 Khajamohiddin Syed COM EH EGMT Yadav Lab Visiting [email protected]

38 Toru Matsuura COM Pathology Ashraf Lab Research [email protected]

39 James DriscollCOM IM Hematology/Oncology Division

Asst Professor [email protected]

40 Olugbenga OlowokureCOM IM Hematology/Oncology Division


Ready, Set, Go: Time Management2/14/2013 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM




3 Lauren Ginsberg A&S Classics Asst [email protected]


5 Michael HegenerPharmacy Practice and Admin Sciences



7 Kelly Lusk COM Ophthalmology Res Asst Professor - Aff [email protected] Laura Sagle A&S Chemistry Asst Professor [email protected]

9 Andrew Czaja A&S Geology Asst Professor [email protected]


11 Xizhi Feng COM Pathology Askew Lab Post Doc Fellow [email protected]


13 Marissa Oehlhof UCBA Behavioral Sciences Asst [email protected]

14 Wendy Gray A&S Psychology Adjuncts Asst Professor - Adj [email protected] Necati Kaval A&S Chemistry Research Associate [email protected]

16 Jung-Min HongA&S Political Science Students


17 Dylan Ward A&S Geology Asst Professor [email protected]

18 Joy Watson Professional Practice Asst Professor [email protected]

19 Michelle DurlingCOM Psychiatry Strakowski Lab

Clinical Res Admin [email protected]

20 Martha Ferguson COM Surgery Colon & Rectal Asst Professor - Clin [email protected]

21 Judy Moore COM Fam Med-Geriatrics Professor - Field Svc Geo [email protected]

22 Martha Good CECH Teacher Education Instructor - Adj [email protected]

23 Cynthia BetcherCON Professional Studies Team

Instructor - Adj [email protected]



25 Hassana FathallahCOM IM Hematology/Oncology Division

Asst Professor - Research [email protected]

26 Margaret KupferleCEAS - Environmental Eng & Science

Assoc [email protected]

27 Patricia Doyle COB Marketing Instructor - Adj [email protected]

Ready, Set, Go: Understanding Organizational Structures and Planning for Career Advancement3/14/2013 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM






5 Gordon GillespieCON Advanced Practice Team

Asst Professor [email protected]

6 Kimberly Hasselfeld COM Orthopaedic Surgery Clin Research [email protected]

7 Jennifer Rose MolanoCOM Neurology and Rehabilitation


8 Yong Zhao CECH Human Services Visiting Scholar [email protected]

9 Kristen Burgess Health Sciences Library Coord Spec Proj/[email protected]

10 Sarah PixleyCOM Can/Cell Biology Pixley Lab




12 Darleen SandovalCOM IM Endocrinology Division


13 Chia Chi Ho CEAS - Chemical Eng Assoc Professor [email protected]

14 Bridgette Peteet A&S Psychology Asst Professor [email protected]



16 Wesley McDonald NA [email protected]

17 Vicky HortonRES LAMS Veterinarian Services

Research Assistant [email protected]

Ready, Set, Go: Mentoring/Career Guidance4/11/2013 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM

Attendee Name UC Dept. Position Email Address1 Gail Jean Pyne-Geithman COM Neurosurgery Assoc Professor [email protected]





5 Samir Tambe CEAS - Aerospace Eng Research Asst [email protected]

6 Mary Beth YacyshynCOM IM Digestive Diseases Division



8 Jody Ballah UCBA Foreign Language Asst Professor [email protected]

9 Yu-Chin FuA&S Information & Technology

Dir Academic [email protected]

10 Marissa Oehlhof UCBA Behavioral Sciences Asst [email protected]

11 Donna Gering COM PCB Administration Program Coordinator (NE)[email protected]

12 Joshua Gross A&S Biological Sciences Asst Professor [email protected]

13 Sarah Whitton A&S Psychology Asst [email protected]

14 Ericka Harrison SA University Judicial Affairs Asst Director/Program Director [email protected]

15 Donna BowmanA&F Equal Opportunity and Access

Asst Dir Equal [email protected]



17 Gregory Sizemore CEAS - Advanced Structures Asst Professor - [email protected]

18 Joshua Smith CECH Criminal Justice Instructor - Adj

19 Daria Narmoneva CEAS - Biomedical Eng Assoc [email protected]

Ready, Set, Go: The Paper Trail5/9/2013 9:00 AM -- 11:00 AM

Attendee Name UC Dept. Position Email Address1 Elad Kivelevitch CEAS - Aerospace Eng Asst Professor-Educator [email protected] Yong Zhao CECH Human Services Visiting Scholar [email protected] Yuet Kin Leung COM EH EGMT Division Asst Professor - Research [email protected] Gaurav Gulati COM IM IMM Fellow/Clinic Clinical Instructor - GME [email protected] Kristen Burgess Health Sciences Library Coord Spec Proj/Prog [email protected] Marissa Oehlhof UCBA Behavioral Sciences Asst Professor [email protected] Michael Hegener Pharmacy Practice and Admin Sciences Asst Professor - Visiting [email protected] Chalee Engelhard CAHS Rehabilitation Sciences Asst Professor - Clin [email protected] Linda Quinlin CON Advanced Practice Team Asst Professor - Clin [email protected]

10 Carmine Leggett COM EH EGMT Nebert Lab Post Doc Fellow [email protected] Colleen McTague A&S Geography Asst Professor [email protected] Debra Ann Krummel CAHS Nutritional Sciences Assoc Professor [email protected] Kevin Raleigh A&S Geography Asst Professor - Educator [email protected] Sangita Kapur COM Radiology Asst Professor - Clin Geo [email protected] Xiaoming Li COM Pathology Tso Lab Asst Professor - Research [email protected] Jennifer Lynn Adelman Brown CEAS - Computer Eng Research Coordinator [email protected] David Jones NA NA [email protected] Nancy Jennings A&S Communication Assoc Professor [email protected] Heather Norton A&S Anthropology Asst Professor [email protected] Kelsay Berra NA NA [email protected] Mary Beth Yacyshyn COM IM Digestive Diseases Division Asst Professor - Adj [email protected] Kelli Hinn CAHS Nutritional Sciences Research Associate [email protected] Takanhisa Nakamura COM Pediatrics CCHMC Aff Faculty Assistant Professor-AFF [email protected] Carolee Kamlager School of Social Work Instructor - Adj [email protected] Katherine Whitcome A&S Anthropology Asst Professor [email protected] Marie Garrison CON Co-op Program Educational Specialist [email protected]

27 Peng Zhang A&S Chemistry Assoc Professor [email protected] Jeffrey Kastner CEAS - Engineering Education Asst Professor - Educator [email protected] Tamara Pavlik-Maus CON Professional Studies Team Asst Professor - Clin [email protected]

Internal Advisory Committee Meeting

Monday, March 11, 2013 8:30-10:30 AM

Room 620 University Pavilion

Meeting Minutes Attendees: President Santa Ono Melanie Cushion Stacie Furst-Holloway Frank Gerner Urmila Ghia Valerie Hardcastle Shuk-Mei Ho Steve Howe Rachel Kallen Remarks from President Ono

• President Ono restated his commitment to the LEAF initiative. He was in attendance at the NSF Advance meeting in Washington, March 3-5, 2013. UC is the 6th cohort and are doing well relative to expectations for new awardees.

o NIH has no comparable program. The president is on an advisory committee for the NIH, and will raise this issue as part of his participation.

o We are one of an enviable 32 institutions awarded an NSF ADVANCE collaborative agreement.

o The launch of the UC LEAF initiative will take place April 8th. o We have engaged a nationally recognized speaker, Dr. Scott Page as our

keynote speaker. o He is an expert in complex systems and speaks to the power of diversity

and how that increases value and leverages output and better outcomes. o He stresses how differences in thinking (i.e. diversity) allow us to be

better, collectively.

Updates on Accomplishments • Urmila Ghia reviewed the primary UC LEAF Initiatives.

o Improve pipeline by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement.

o Transform climate by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress, equity, and an inclusive culture.

o Create interdependence by enabling sustainable dynamic institutional practice and policy through the Accountability and Advocacy Council (AAC).

• Melanie Cushion reviewed LEAF accomplishments to date, including: o Logistics

§ Hired UC LEAF Program Coordinator, Nancie Ehlert, who started in January 2013

§ Temporary office established in Edwards 1 7125 o Branding

§ LEAF commissioned the services of the Creative Department, a Cincinnati-based advertising and branding firm, to develop a visual brand and identity for the initiative.

§ The website (uc.edu/orgs/ucleaf) will be launched 3/12/13. § A UC LEAF design has been established (see top of page) § Stock photos on our website will be replaced with actual UC LEAF

event photos as they become available. § Communication: The brand will be used to keep communications

effective and recognizable. § We are in compliance with the UC Branding Office.

o Continuation and Support of Ready Set Go (RSG) Workshops § RSG is a series of professional development workshops geared

toward junior faculty. § Dr. Cushion developed the first series last year. This year, as part

of the LEAF initiative, we partnered with CET&L to offer the workshop. The partnership will allow the workshop series to be sustainable.

§ Sustainability is a key goal of the NSF ADVANCE program along with Evidence and Impact.

§ The LEAF program coordinator sends personal reminders to appropriate STEM women faculty to boost their attendance.

§ The development of mid- and senior- faculty training is underway. o Internal Funding

§ A call for submissions for UC LEAF seed grants is being developed for a call at the LEAF Launch.

§ LEAF is also working with Dr. Bill Ball (Vice President for Research) to promote a new URC-sponsored diversity grant to support pilot projects related to diversity (very broadly defined). Although potential recipients are not limited to STEM women faculty, this initiative demonstrates support from UC leadership toward the mission of LEAF.

§ President Ono suggested a Career Re-Entry grant/program from the President’s Office. The grant would be used to support women faculty who stepped out of the tenure path (e.g., for maternity leave) temporarily with seed funds upon their return to collect data needed for subsequent external funding proposals.

• Such an effort would signal commitment and sustainability of effort to NSF

• An amount of $200,000 was floated • LEAF leadership will begin to gather information on similar

policies at other universities in preparation of a policy proposal.

• Steve Howe mentioned possibility of also working to include aspects of such a program in upcoming AAUP contract negotiations.

• Potential to use U.C. lobbyists to further program outside of U.C.

o The LEAF team is preparing for Visiting Scholars § Shannon Walker (3/13 – 3/14) § Diane Magraine (TBD) § Catherine Morrision (Fall 2013)

• Steve Howe provided a review of the logic model training to those in attendance. o While the plan for logic model training is in place, the LEAF leadership

team has been focused on developing the best plan for rolling out the training to various departments/colleges.

o The team met with Provost Johnson last week. He reiterated his support for the workshops and will coordinate a communication strategy to emphasize support.

o We will be piloting the workshops with key departments (e.g., environmental health, psychology, possibly physics and at least mechanical engineering of CEA&S were volunteered).

o Planning for rollouts will be occurring quickly for opportunity to implement on current faculty searches.

• Rachel Kallen noted that the LEAF team is focused on continued sustainability of our efforts by integrating what we do with other efforts already existing on campus.

o We are working with Robin Martin on multiple initiatives to avoid duplication of efforts.

o Robin is coordinating a “Women in STEM Faculty Lunch” with Provost Johnson for April 2013 as part of a faculty lunch series with the Provost.

o President Ono an expressed interest in organizing a similar “Dinner with the President” exclusively for women in STEM. The date of this event is TBD.

§ Pres. Ono stated he could help with his contacts as well. o President Ono suggested that we introduce UC LEAF to our new HR

Director, Erin Ascher and EEO Director Matt Boaz so that they can be included in search committee presentations.

• Updates on the Social Science Research Studies o Stacie Holloway reviewed progress to date on the social network study.

§ We are in the process of gathering archival data (e.g., citation analysis) to identify professional networks of men and women faculty vis-à-vis their co-authors and collaborators.

§ We will also be gathering survey feedback from men and women faculty regarding their personal and professional networks with the aim of understanding whether and how networks of men and women vary in terms of size, quality, and utility.

§ Shuk-Mei Ho expressed the need for women to be more visible through participation on boards/committees.

• Helps build network • Leaders need to be actively recommending and

suggesting appropriate peers for committee membership. • UC could provide faculty training on being a board

member/committee member.

• We will be relying on a substantial response rate, so will send an invitation to participate through President Ono’s office.

o Steve Howe provided an update on the Discourse Analysis study. § Data is being gathered from job advertisements and other formal

communications and input to databases for coding. o Stacie Holloway noted that the team is working with Arnie Miller (A&S) to

analyze turnover issues. Specifically, they will be collecting survey data from faculty who have left UC to discern patterns/themes in terms of “reasons for leaving” and “factors that may have retained them.” The team will also gather information on where those individuals went after leaving UC and, where possible, how their careers have progressed.

o Steve Howe reviewed Evaluation efforts to date. § The Evaluation team is working with our External Evaluator, Sara

Woodruff, to collect all baseline data. § The UC Climate Survey.

• Anticipated Spring/ Summer 2013 • The Leadership team provided a summary of the March ADVANCE Meeting at

NSF. o The meeting was attended by President Ono and Drs. Cushion, Howe,

Holloway, Kallen, and Ghia. o The team met with ADVANCE Program Officer, Beth Mitchneck. o The overall Impression of UC LEAF’s progress is positive and exceeds

expectations for newly funded programs. • Rachel Kallen provided an update on the 1st Year NSF Site Visit.

o The date is TBD as we are in the process of obtaining more information. o NSF will be looking for three specific deliverables: evidence, impact, and

sustainability. o Rachel Kallen further indicated that the EAC will be convened in fall. We

will document all interactions with and utilization of EAC members (informally) to demonstrate that we are relying on the Committee.

• Melanie Cushion updated the group on the UC LEAF Launch on April 8th. o Presentation of UC LEAF to community and University. o Please make sure that you are discussing and talking it up with faculty

and staff. o 9:00 – 11:00 opening presentation from UC LEAF Leaders, President

Ono, and guest speaker Scott E. Page. o Afternoon workshop with Scott E. Page will be by-invitation-only and

targeted towards deans, directors, department heads, and other key faculty members.

o Concurrent with the workshop, we will also hold a networking lunch for STEM women faculty.

o President Ono proposed awards for those women most involved in diversity initiatives, sponsored by the President’s office.

• Urmila Ghia noted that we are in the process of adding a statement in Faculty Search Announcements.

o "UC is an ADVANCE institution, with an NSF Institutional Transformation award to increase the participation and advancement of women in STEM academic careers, and provide support throughout all phases of their career development."

• Chair Updates IAC: Urmila Ghia o Continue LEAF discussion and support o Meeting attendance increase with planning

• Chair Updates AAC: Valerie Hardcastle o Committee has been communicating amongst itself, is anxious to meet

• Plan For Next Quarter o Launch o Learning Communities

§ Recruit Learning Community Mentors § Recruit new faculty member participants § Convene Learning Communities

• Astronaut Shannon Walker Visit o Please participate and encourage students and colleagues to participate. o Living in the International Space Station presentation 3/13/13 4:00 p.m. –

5:30 p.m. in 127 McMicken o Women in Science Today Pizza Lunch with Shannon Walker Noon

3/14/13 Physics Atrium (Geology/Physics Building) • Next Meeting

o Please watch for meeting minder, meeting will be scheduled in June/July timeframe once NSF ADVANCE Year 1 site visit has been scheduled.

LEAF Evaluation Plan June 2013

Our plan for the evaluation of the UC ADVANCE initiative is presented in Figure 1 and Tables 1 and 2, along with the following commentary, some of which addresses concerns expressed by the program office on an earlier draft. Figure shows that LEAF consists of eight primary activities, seven of which are further classified as being either efforts to effect top-down change or bottom-up change, with the remaining activity designed to ensure that these different types of efforts are reconciled and mutually supportive. Our goals include pathway enhancements, climate transformation, and the promotion of LEAF as a sustainable initiative of benefit to all. Figure 1 also displays our key long-term outcomes. Table 1 sets out in more detail the goals, objectives, outcomes, and activities we will undertake. Whereas Figure 1 presents only our long-term outcomes, Table 1 also presents our intermediate-term outcomes, which are unique to program activities. Note that our intermediate-term outcomes are designed to help us understand if specific program activities are working. In contrast, our long-term outcomes are not unique associated with activities. In response to a reviewer’s concerns, we have down-played the use of the term logic model. We do not distinguish between the idea of a logic model and the idea of a theory of change. To us, the terms are inter-changeable. The reviewer also asked us to clarify how we understand proof of causation to obtain from our evaluation plan. As just stated, if we implement our program activities, and we do not obtain our intermediate outcomes, then our evaluation suggests that our model is wrong. Similarly, if we obtain our intermediate outcomes but do not achieve our long-term outcomes, then our model is wrong. (Achieving outcomes does not prove our model is correct, but it does lend support to the model’s correctness.) Table 2 presents detailed information about how we will measure, and when we will measure, each of our outcomes, whether long-term or intermediate. We plan to use five primary methods, including a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Out of concern that our earlier plan placed too much emphasis on short-term objectives (and consequently included many activities associated with those) with the effect that they obscured our intermediate and long-term objectives, we have eliminated these from the model, although the “challenges” column pays heed to critical short-term issues that we must address in order to be successful. We plan to make formative use of all of our evaluation results from years one through four. The core leadership team will review all results from these years annually, as well as seek the input of the advisory committees and the Accountability and Advocacy Committee. The most important summative results will be the fifth year results on the measures of our long-term outcomes, as well as the external reviewer’s and the leadership team’s assessment of the extent to which the project will be sustained.

Figure 1: Overview of LEAF

Activities Type of Change Goals Long-‐term Outcomes

1. Professional Development Workshops2. LEAF Grants

3. Training Workshops4. Best Practices Seminars

5. Learning Communities Increased % engaged/empowered6. Visiting Scholars Increased % well-‐mentored

Increased % achievingDecreased % concerns work-‐life bal.

Decreased M-‐F discrepancies

Sustain LEAF → Bottom-‐up change efforts succeed

7. Unit-‐Level Logic Models

8. Accountability and Advocacy Council

Improve pathways to meet or exceed national

norms

More qualified women candidatesMore women hired

More women tenuredMore women promoted to full

→

→

→

→

Improve climate

Bottom Up

Top Down

Bottom Up

Top Down

→

→

→ Integrate Both Types of Change

→

→

→

→

→

Table 1: Goals, Objectives, Outcomes, and Activities

Goal: Improve pathways for women faculty, including women faculty of color, in STEM by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement

Objectives

A. Ensure that all STEM units meet or exceed national norms for the inclusion of women STEM scientists at every career stage

Long-‐Term Outcomes

1. Increase the percentage of qualified women candidates for STEM scientist positions at UC

2. Increase the percentage of women hired for STEM scientist positions at UC at all levels

3. Increase the percentage of tenure-‐track women who are promoted and tenured

4. Increase the percentage of women tenured associate professors who are promoted to full professor

Program Activities/Interventions

Bottom Up

a) Professional development workshops

Intermediate Outcomes

1) Empower junior faculty women to establish competitive research programs

2) Engage mid-‐career faculty women in gaining visibility and stature

3) Enhance the impact of senior faculty women

b) LEAF grants


1) Women gain experience writing and reviewing grants

2) Women gain seed funding

3) Women gain advanced training (skills, entrepreneurship, community)

4) Women improve academic and professional leadership skills

Top Down

a) Training workshops for deans, heads, and faculty committees

b) Best practices seminar series


1) Improve knowledge and awareness of inclusion among key decision makers

2) Promote improved institutional policies

Goal: Transform the climate for STEM faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress, equity, and an inclusive culture

Objectives

A. Increase proportion of women STEM scientists who report being empowered, engaged, and achieving up to their potential

B. Reduce male-‐female discrepancy in concerns about work-‐life balance or about support for career success


1. Increase percentage of women STEM scientists who report feeling engaged and empowered

2. Increase percentage of women STEM scientists who report having good mentoring

3. Increase percentage of women STEM scientists who report feeling that they are achieving to their full potential

4. Decrease percentage of women STEM scientists who report concerns about UC in terms of work-‐life balance

5. Decrease discrepancy between men and women STEM scientists on all the above measures


Bottom Up

a) Learning Communities

Intermediate outcomes

1) Women in earlier years serve as mentors for women in later learning communities

2) Participants will play leadership roles at the University

3) Women will gain experience identifying and solving problems

b) Visiting Scholars Program


1) Produce intellectual and social support for women STEM faculty

2) Increase the visibility of women and minority STEM faculty

3) Enable networking and collaboration across institutions

Top Down

a) Unit-‐level logic model development and implementation


1) Deans demonstrate commitment to individual units having and implementing logic models

2) Department heads implement actions called for in their unit-‐specific logic models

Goal: Top-‐down and bottom-‐up approaches will be mutually reinforcing and foster shared responsibility

Objectives

A. LEAF will be sustainable as a result of efforts by the Accountability and Advocacy Council


1. Minimize the number of instances where bottom-‐up change is stymied by organizational barriers

2. All successful LEAF initiatives will be supported internally for sustainability


Mediate Between Bottom Up and Top Down Change Efforts

a) Process reports on initiative successes and failures


1) AAC regularly briefed on program activities

b) Facilitate candid exchange between participants and program staff and between participants and administration


1) Propagators of bottom-‐up change see the AAC as an ally

Table 2: Assessments NSF NSF Indicator Tables (External; Quantitative)WS Workshop Assessments (Internal; Quantitative and Qualitative)FG Focus Groups (Most Internal; Qualitative)KI Key Informant Interviews (External; Qualitative)

Goal/Activities CS Climate Survey (External; Mostly Quantitative; Some Qualitative)↓

Pathways Long-‐term Outcomes Method Schedule Key Challenges/Short Term OutcomesIncrease the percentage of qualified women candidates for STEM scientist positions at UC

NSF,KI

AnnualYrs 1, 3, 5

Increase the percentage of women hired for STEM scientist positions at UC at all levels

NSF,KI

AnnualYrs 1, 3, 5

Increase the percentage of tenure-‐track women who are promoted and tenured

NSF,KI

AnnualYrs 1, 3, 5

Increase the percentage of women tenured associate professors who are promoted to full professor

NSF,KI

AnnualYrs 1, 3, 5

Intermediate OutcomesEmpower junior faculty women to establish competitive research programs

WS,FG

Event,Annual

Engage mid-‐career faculty women in gaining visibility and stature

WSFG

Event,Annual

Enhance the impact of senior faculty womenWSFGKI

Event,Annual

Yrs 1, 3, 5Women gain experience writing and reviewing grants FG Yrs 2, 4Women gain seed funding FG Yrs 2, 4Women gain advanced training (skills, entrepreneurship, community)

FG Yrs 2, 4

Women improve academic and professional leadership skills

FG Yrs 2, 4

Improve knowledge and awareness of inclusion among key decision makers

KI Yrs 1, 3, 5

Promote improved institutional policies KI Yrs 1, 3, 5

As we noted in our proposal, there are serious data challenges that must overcome, including an absence of good data on faculty exits, complete data on ethnicity, centralized data on promotion and tenure outcomes, and even perfect accuracy on faculty titles.

We are exploring alternatives to the proposed annual surveys to get productivity data. Workshop assessment instruments are used after every session but we plan to revised them for next year. We will conduct focus groups at the end of every year to solicit ideas for improvement.

We plan to conduct groups both with women applying for grants and with women who chose not to apply. The latter groups will help us learn why women did not apply (e.g., perhaps they helt they had no need).

We will shortly have some valuable data from the first round of interviews.

Climate Long-‐term Outcomes Method Key ChallengesIncrease percentage of women STEM scientists who report feeling engaged and empowered

CS Yrs 1, 5

Increase percentage of women STEM scientists who report having good mentoring

CS Yrs 1, 5

Increase percentage of women STEM scientists who report feeling that they are achieving to their full potential

CS Yrs 1, 5

Decrease percentage of women STEM scientists who report concerns about UC in terms of work-‐life balance

CS Yrs 1, 5

Decrease discrepancy between men and women STEM scientists on all the above measures

CS Yrs 1, 5

Intermediate OutcomesWomen in earlier years serve as mentors for women in later learning communities

FG Annual

Participants will play leadership roles at the University NSF, FG AnnualWomen will gain experience identifying and solving problems

FGKI

Annual,Yrs 1, 3, 5

Produce intellectual and social support for women STEM faculty

FG, KI Yrs 2, 4Yrs 1, 3, 5

Increase the visibility of women and minority STEM facultyFG, KI Yrs 2, 4

Yrs 1, 3, 5

Enable networking and collaboration across institutionsFG, KI Yrs 2, 4

Yrs 1, 3, 5Deans demonstrate commitment to individual units having and implementing logic models

KI Yrs 1, 3, 5

Department heads implement actions called for in their unit-‐specific logic models

KI Yrs 1, 3, 5

Mutuality Long-‐term Outcomes Method Key Challenges

Minimize the number of instances where bottom-‐up change is stymied by organizational barriers KI Yrs 1, 3, 5

We have to learn how to publicize the AAC without it being seen as intruding upon other organizational processes. The advice of the new provost and new vice provost for faculty affairs will be critical.

Our first climate survey is ready to conduct as soon as we can be assured that the timing will be propitious. We missed the opportunity to do this in Spring 2013 because we wanted to take great care in determining what content to cover.

We think it would be intrusive to request evaluations after every meeting of each learning community, so we will do annual focus groups to which all participants in preceding year are invited.

The climate survey (years 1 and 5) will also be helpful here for summative evaluation purposes. Our focus groups will be done annually to help us learn what aspects of the visiting scholar program work best.

We will meet with the new provost as soon as possible. Her support for this initiative will be critical.

All successful LEAF initiatives will be supported internally for sustainability KI Yr 5

A challenge we are already confronting is how to manage the tension between LEAF control and the influence of people and offices who can sustain the efforts.

Intermediate OutcomesAAC regularly briefed on program activities KI Yrs 1, 3, 5 -‐

Propagators of bottom-‐up change see the AAC as an allyFG,KI

Yrs 2, 4Yrs 1, 3, 5

This can be addressed by the learning community facilitators.

UC LEAF Timeline

UC LEAF LEADERSHIP TEAM AND AFFILIATED COMMITEES

UC LEAF LEADERSHIP TEAM: PI: UC President Santa Ono, Ph.D.; Program Director (PD): Melanie Cushion, Ph.D.; Associate Program Directors (APD): Rachel Kallen, Ph.D. and Stacie Holloway, Ph.D.; Director of Diversity Initiatives (DDI): Monica Mitchell, Ph.D.. UC LEAF RESEARCH TEAM: Steve Howe, Ph.D., Stacie Holloway, Ph.D. and Rachel Kallen, Ph.D. UC LEAF EVALUATION TEAMS: Internal Evaluation, Steve Howe, Ph.D.; External Evaluation, Sarah Woodruff, Ph.D. ADVISORY COMMITTEES: Internal Advisory Committee (IAC), Urmila Ghia, Ph.D.; External Advisory Committee (EAC), Sandra Degen, Ph.D.; Advocacy and Accountability Committee (AAC), Valerie Hardcastle, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (PC), Nancie Ehlert

Melanie Cushion (PD) Rachel Kallen (APD)

Stacie Holloway (APD) Monica Mitchell (Dir. of

Diversity Initiatives)

President Ono (PI)

External Evaluation:

Sarah Woodruff (Miami)

Internal Evaluation: Steve Howe

Research Team: Steve Howe

Stacie Holloway Rachel Kallen

AAC Chair: Valerie Harcastle

EAC Chair: Sandra Degen

IAC Chair: Urmila Ghia

Initiative I: Improve pathways for women faculty, including women faculty of color, in STEM by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement Bottom Up: 1. One Professional Development Workshop Series (Ready, Set, Go!) aimed at empowering junior

women STEM faculty to establish a competitive research program and successful career trajectory.

a. Years Offered: 1 - 5 b. Frequency: monthly during academic year

Key components: a. Design and development of content

a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Continuous, as needed

b. Coordination of facilitators and implementation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & UC Office co-sponsors (e.g., Office of

Research, Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning; CET&L) b. Timing: Summer

c. Individual workshop evaluation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors, Program Coordinator b. Timing: at end of each session

d. Coordination of sustainability a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors b. Timing: Continuous

e. Annual Evaluation for need and content redesign a. Responsible: Program Director, Associate Program Directors, Internal Evaluator, &

Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Summer

f. Promotion and email recruitment a. Responsible: Program Coordinator, UC Office co-sponsors (e.g., Office of Research,

CET&L) b. Timing: Continuous

2. Two additional Professional Development Workshop Series. One is aimed at engaging mid-

career women STEM faculty in gaining visibility and stature as they pursue promotion and tenure. The second workshop series is aimed at enhancing the impact of senior women STEM faculty both within and outside of the institution.


Key components: a. Design and development of content

a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Summer Year 1, and Continuously, as needed

b. Coordination of facilitators and implementation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & UC Offices co-sponsors CET&L, Office

of Research b. Timing: Summer

c. Individual workshop evaluation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors, Program Coordinator b. Timing: at end of each session


e. Annual Evaluation for need and content redesign a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors, Internal Evaluator, &

Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Summer

f. Promotion and email recruitment a. Responsible: Program Coordinator, UC Offices (co-sponsors) b. Timing: Continuous

3. UC LEAF Awards aimed at supporting women STEM faculty across rank in pursuit of research

and professional goals. The Seed Award is for women STEM faculty without external funding to support research efforts. The Career Branch Award is for all women STEM faculty to provide support for advanced training in a particular area, for interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, or for entrepreneurial and community endeavors. The Leadership Branch Award is to support attendance at national conferences or training programs that help prepare mid and senior level faculty for positions of academic or professional leadership.

a. Years Offered: 1 – 5 i. Call for proposals: Summer/Fall (Year 1), Spring (Years 2 -5) ii. Funding Period: September 15 – August 31

b. Frequency: Annually Key components:

a. Design and development of Call for Proposals a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Spring and Summer/Fall Year 1, and Continuously, as needed

b. Coordination of Review Panels and Review Process a. Responsible: Program Director, Program Coordinator b. Timing: monthly, during academic year

c. Coordination of sustainability a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors b. Timing: Continuous

d. Promotion and email recruitment a. Responsible: Program Coordinator b. Timing: Spring and Summer

e. Focus groups in years 2 and 4 with women who did and did not apply a. Responsible: Internal evaluator b. Timing: late spring, summer

Top Down: 1. UC LEAF Best Practices Training workshops to improve knowledge and awareness of inclusion

among key decision makers and promote improved sustainable institutional policies that address standardization of practices and allow for productive negotiation of important issues related to implicit bias and women STEM faculty. Three separate workshops will be offered for (a) deans, (b) department heads, and (c) members of Hiring and Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure (RPT) committees.

Council of Deans a. Years Offered: 2 – 5 b. Frequency: Annually or as requested

Department Heads a. Years Offered: 2 – 5 b. Frequency: Annually or as requested

Hiring and RPT Committees a. Years Offered: 2 – 5 b. Frequency: Fall or as requested

Key components:

a. Design and development of content a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors, Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives,

Office of the Provost (VP for Academic Personnel, Associate Provost for Diversity and Inclusion)

b. Timing: Continuous, as needed b. Individual workshop evaluation

a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors, Program Coordinator b. Timing: Annually, following workshops

c. Coordination of facilitators and implementation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & Office of the Provost b. Timing: Summer


e. Evaluation a. Responsible: External evaluator will do key informant interviews b. Timing: Years 1, 3, 5

f. Promotion and email recruitment a. Responsible: Program Director, Program Coordinator, Office of the Provost b. Timing: Continuous

2. UC LEAF Best Practices Seminar Series is designed to enlist leaders in the fields of innovative

transformation to share their insights and experiences in challenges and successes in institutional transformation. The speakers will include previous ADVANCE program directors and administrators, leaders in industry and local organizations that promote equity and diversity in their organizations, and scholars specializing in broadening participation of women in STEM.

a. Years Offered: 1 - 5 b. Frequency: Spring (Year 1), Fall and Spring (Years 2 -5)

Key components: a. Coordination of Speakers and implementation

a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Summer, Fall

b. Individual seminar evaluation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors, Program Coordinator b. Timing: Summer, Fall

c. Coordination of sustainability a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors b. Timing: Continuous

d. Evaluation a. Responsible: External evaluator will do key informant interviews b. Timing: Years 1, 3, 5

e. Promotion and email recruitment a. Responsible: Program Director, Program Coordinator b. Timing: Continuous

Initiative II: Transform the climate for STEM faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress, equity, and an inclusive culture Bottom Up: 1. Learning Communities for women STEM faculty to establish broader informal mentor and social

networks, as well as to provide a mechanism for identifying challenges and solutions unique to UC women STEM faculty across rank and college.


Key components: a. Design and development of process

a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Spring, Summer (year 1), continuously as needed

b. Coordination of facilitators and implementation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & UC Offices co-sponsors Barb Rinto,

Director, UC Women’s Center b. Timing: Spring, Summer

c. Facilitator Training a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & (Beginning Year 3) past LC Facilitators b. Timing: Summer

d. Individual LC Meeting evaluation a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors, Program Coordinator b. Timing: monthly, during academic year

e. Coordination of sustainability a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors b. Timing: Continuous

f. Annual Evaluation for need and process redesign a. Responsible: Program Director, Associate Program Directors, Internal Evaluator, &

Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives, external evaluator b. Timing: Focus groups each summer and key informant interviews in years 1, 3, 5

g. Promotion a. Responsible: Program Director, Program Coordinator b. Timing: Continuous

2. UC LEAF Visiting Scholars Program for women STEM faculty to establish broader informal mentor

and social networks, as well as to provide a mechanism for identifying challenges and solutions unique to UC women STEM faculty across rank and college.

a. Years Offered: 1 - 5 b. Frequency: Spring (Year 1), Fall & Spring (Years 2 -5)

Key components: a. Coordination of Speakers and implementation

a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors & Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives b. Timing: Summer, Fall

b. Coordination of sustainability a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors b. Timing: Continuous

c. Evaluation a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors, Internal Evaluator, &

Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives, external evaluator b. Focus groups in years 2, 4 c. Key informant interviews in years 1, 3, 5 d. Timing: Summer

d. Promotion and email recruitment a. Responsible: Program Director, Program Coordinator b. Timing: Continuous

Top Down: 1. Unit-Level Logic Models for all STEM departments aimed at facilitating accountability,

transparency, and inclusiveness. Deans will hold department heads accountable, and they in turn

will work with LEAF staff to identify strengths and challenges, develop plans for action, and monitor progress relative to the initiatives of UC LEAF.

a. Years Offered: 1 - 5 b. Frequency: Continuous (Initial meetings with departments), annually (Years 2 – 5)

Key components: a. Design and development of Initial process

a. Responsible: Internal Evaluator, Associate Program Directors & Director of LEAF Diversity Initiatives

b. Timing: Spring, Summer (year 1), continuously as needed b. Coordination of facilitators and implementation

a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors b. Timing: Spring, Summer; continuously as needed

c. Facilitator Training a. Responsible: Associate Program Directors; Internal Evaluator; selected UC Faculty b. Timing: Summer


e. Evaluation for need and process redesign a. Responsible: External Evaluator b. Timing: Years 1, 3, 5

f. Promotion a. Responsible: Program Director, Program Coordinator b. Timing: Continuous

Initiative III: Create interdependence to reinforce mutual responsibility and fosters shared responsibility to enable sustainable dynamic institutional practice and policy. The Accountability and Advocacy Council is charged with (a) critically evaluating data on recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion and advancement initiatives, (b) reporting on the systemic changes as a result of logic models for systemic policy and leadership reform, (c) providing feedback on initiative successes and challenges (in conjunction with advisory boards) to facilitate continued progress , and (d) providing a venue for safe, positive and effective communication between the different programming of LEAF (i.e., bottom-up and top-down programming outcomes, faculty and administration, etc.).

a. Years Offered: 1 - 5 b. Frequency: Council Meetings – Fall, Spring

Key components: a. Oversight & Coordination with AAC Chair

a. Responsible: Program Director b. Timing: Continuous

b. Coordination of sustainability a. Responsible: Program Director & Associate Program Directors b. Timing: Continuous

c. Evaluation a. Responsible: External evaluator b. Timing: Summer

d. Publicity a. Responsible: Program Director, Program Coordinator b. Timing: Continuous

Initiative IV: Social Science Research Social Science research on climate and transformation of policy and reform, as expressed through message linguistics, subjective experiences, and social networks. Social Network Analysis

a. Years: 1 - 5 b. Frequency: Continuous

Key components: a. Oversight & Coordination

a. Responsible: Research Team b. Timing: Continuous

b. Design & Hypothesis Development a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing: Year 1

c. Measures and Recruitment a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing: Continuous

d. Data Collection a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing: Continuous; archival data to be collected on a continuous basis beginning

Year 1; Individual and department-level data collected Year 2 and Year 5 for comparison purposes

e. Data Analysis a. Responsible: Research Team b. Timing: Continuous

f. Dissemination a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing: Years 2-5

Discourse Analysis

a. Years: 1 - 5 b. Frequency: Continuous

Key components: a. Oversight & Coordination

a. Responsible: Research Team b. Timing: Continuous

b. Design & Hypothesis Development a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing:

c. Data Collection a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing: Continuous

d. Coding a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing: Continuous

e. Data Analysis a. Responsible: Research Team b. Timing: Continuous

f. Dissemination a. Responsible: Research Team, Graduate & Undergraduate Student Researchers b. Timing: Years 2-5

Advisory Boards

The Internal and External Advisory Committees meet with the leadership team to review the progress of the project as a whole, provide critical top-level input, and provide their recommendations to the program on a regular basis.

a. Years: 1 - 5 b. Meeting Frequency: IAC– quarterly; EAC– annually; Fall (Years 1 – 4), Summer (Year 5);

AAC- continuous, as needed. Key components:

a. Oversight & Coordination with Chairs a. Responsible: Program Director b. Timing: Continuous

FILE: Macintosh HD:Users:NancieEhlert:Desktop:For Submission :UC_Indicator_Tables_Yr1_for UC.xlsTAB: Table 1.1

TABLE 1.1 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TENURED AND TENURE TRACK FACULTY IN STEM BY GENDER, RANK AND DEPARTMENT - 12/31/2012Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty Only Included Asst, Assoc, and Pro

College Department Assistant Associate FullUniv Dist

ProfEndowed Prof Assistant Associate Full Univ Dist Prof

Endowed Prof

Assistant Associate FullUniv Dist

ProfEndowed

ProfArts and Sciences College Total 21 14 16 19 30 86 52.50% 31.82% 15.69%

A&S Anthropology 5 0 0 2 1 2 71.43% 0.00% 0.00%A&S Biological Sciences 2 4 4 4 5 8 33.33% 44.44% 33.33%A&S Chemistry 1 1 2 4 6 11 20.00% 14.29% 15.38%A&S Geography 1 1 1 1 2 6 50.00% 33.33% 14.29%A&S Geology 2 0 0 1 1 10 66.67% 0.00% 0.00%A&S Mathematical Sciences 3 4 4 4 6 25 42.86% 40.00% 13.79%A&S Physics 1 0 1 2 5 17 33.33% 0.00% 5.56%A&S Psychology 6 4 4 1 4 7 85.71% 50.00% 36.36%

Engineering & Applied Science College Total 2 9 4 9 47 74 18.18% 16.07% 5.13%CEAS Aerospace Eng 0 0 1 1 6 9 0.00% 0.00% 10.00%CEAS Architectural Eng 1 0 0 0 1 0 100.00% 0.00%CEAS Biomedical Eng 0 1 0 3 2 2 0.00% 33.33% 0.00%CEAS Chemical Eng 0 1 0 1 2 5 0.00% 33.33% 0.00%CEAS Civil Eng 0 0 0 0 3 2 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Comp Sciences & Info 0 1 0 0 6 0 14.29%CEAS Computer Science 0 0 1 0 2 4 0.00% 20.00%CEAS Construction Management 0 0 0 0 2 5 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Electronics & Comp Science 0 1 1 0 9 22 10.00% 4.35%CEAS Energy 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00%CEAS Engineering Education 0 2 0 0 1 1 66.67% 0.00%CEAS Environmental Eng & Sci 1 1 0 1 2 6 50.00% 33.33% 0.00%CEAS Materials Eng 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Mechanical Eng 0 0 1 2 10 12 0.00% 0.00% 7.69%CEAS Mechanical Eng Tech 0 2 0 0 1 2 66.67% 0.00%

Medicine College Total 8 15 16 16 33 68 33.33% 31.25% 19.05%COM Anesthesiology 0 0 0 1 1 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%COM Can/Cell Biology 0 3 4 7 2 5 0.00% 60.00% 44.44%COM Dermatology 0 0 1 0 0 1 50.00%COM Emergency Medicine 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.00%COM Environmental Health 3 5 3 2 4 12 60.00% 55.56% 20.00%COM Family Medicine 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00%COM Hoxworth 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.00%COM Internal Medicine 1 3 3 2 3 5 33.33% 50.00% 37.50%COM Mol & Cellular Physiology 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%COM Molecular Genetics 0 0 3 0 7 12 0.00% 20.00%COM Neurology 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00%COM Neurosurgery 0 1 0 0 0 0 100.00%COM Obstetrics & Gynecology 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00%COM Ophthalmology 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00% 0.00%COM Pathology & Lab Medicine 2 1 1 0 3 5 100.00% 25.00% 16.67%COM Pediatrics 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00%COM Pharm & Cell Biophysics 0 1 1 1 4 5 0.00% 20.00% 16.67%COM Physiology 1 1 0 2 1 4 33.33% 50.00% 0.00%COM Psychiatry 1 0 0 0 2 3 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%COM Public Health 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00%COM Surgery 0 0 0 0 2 3 0.00% 0.00%

31 38 36 44 110 228 41.33% 25.68% 13.64%

105 382 0.215606

NOTE: Data reported by headcounts. SOURCE: G:\...\Raw Data\Indicator\UC_Indicator_Yr1.sav

STEM TOTAL

WOMEN MEN PERCENT WOMEN

FILE: Macintosh HD:Users:NancieEhlert:Desktop:For Submission :UC_Indicator_Tables_Yr1_for UC.xlsTAB: Table 1.2

TABLE 1.2 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF WOMEN (TENURED AND TENURE TRACK) FACULTY IN STEM BY ETHNICITY, RANK AND DEPARTMENT - 12/31/2012Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty Only Included Asst, Assoc, and Pro

Hawaiian-PI = Hawaiian or Pacific IslanderAm Ind-AN=American Indian or Alaskan NativeMultiple=more than one ethnic identity

College DepartmentUnknown

Am Indian

Asian Biracial BlackHispa

nicNRA White

Unknown

Am Indian


nicNRA White

Unknown

Am Indian


nicNRA White

Arts and Sciences College Total 1 0 1 0 0 2 4 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 10A&S Anthropology 0 0 1 1 3A&S Biological Sciences 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 3A&S Chemistry 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2A&S Geography 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0A&S Geology 0 0 0 0 2A&S Mathematical Sciences 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 3 2 0 2A&S Physics 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0A&S Psychology 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 3 0 1 3

Engineering & Applied Science College Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3CEAS Aerospace Eng 0 0 1CEAS Architectural Eng 0 0 0 0 1CEAS Biomedical Eng 0 0 1CEAS Chemical Eng 1 0 0CEAS Civil EngCEAS Comp Sciences & Info 0 0 1CEAS Computer Science 0 0 1CEAS Construction ManagementCEAS Electronics & Comp Science 0 0 1 0 0 1CEAS EnergyCEAS Engineering Education 0 0 2CEAS Environmental Eng & Sci 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0CEAS Materials EngCEAS Mechanical Eng 1 0 0CEAS Mechanical Eng Tech 1 0 1

Medicine College Total 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16COM AnesthesiologyCOM Can/Cell Biology 1 0 2 0 0 4COM Dermatology 0 0 1COM Emergency MedicineCOM Environmental Health 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 3COM Family MedicineCOM HoxworthCOM Internal Medicine 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3COM Mol & Cellular PhysiologyCOM Molecular Genetics 0 0 3COM NeurologyCOM Neurosurgery 0 1 0COM Obstetrics & GynecologyCOM OphthalmologyCOM Pathology & Lab Medicine 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1COM PediatricsCOM Pharm & Cell Biophysics 0 0 1 0 0 1COM Physiology 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1COM Psychiatry 0 0 0 0 1COM Public HealthCOM Surgery

STEM TOTAL 1 3 3 6 18 10 2 26 6 1 29 105

NOTE: Data reported by headcounts.SOURCE: G:\...\Raw Data\Indicator\UC_Indicator_Yr1.savDATE:

UnknownAm Indian = American Indian or Alaskan NativeAsianBiracialBlackHispanicNRA = Non Resident AlienWhite

ASSISTANT PROFESSORS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FULL PROFESSORS

File: Macintosh HD:Users:NancieEhlert:Desktop:For Submission :UC_Indicator_Tables_Yr1_for UC.xlsTab: Table 2

TABLE 2.0 STEM DEPARTMENTAL FACULTY GENDER COMPOSITION BY APPOINTMENT TYPE - 12/31/2012Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty Only Included Asst, Assoc, and ProNon-Tenure Track Faculty Only Included Asst Res, Assoc Res, and Pro Res

College Department All Women % Women All Women % WomenArts and Sciences College Total 186 51 27.42% 0 0 0.00%

A&S Anthropology 10 5 50.00% 0 0 0.00%A&S Biological Sciences 27 10 37.04% 0 0 0.00%A&S Chemistry 25 4 16.00% 0 0 0.00%A&S Geography 12 3 25.00% 0 0 0.00%A&S Geology 14 2 14.29% 0 0 0.00%A&S Mathematical Sciences 46 11 23.91% 0 0 0.00%A&S Physics 26 2 7.69% 0 0 0.00%A&S Psychology 26 14 53.85% 0 0 0.00%

Engineering & Applied Science College Total 145 15 10.34% 9 0 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Aerospace Eng 17 1 5.88% 3 0 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Architectural Eng 2 1 50.00% 0 0 0.00%CEAS Biomedical Eng 8 1 12.50% 0 0 0.00%CEAS Chemical Eng 9 1 11.11% 0 0 0.00%CEAS Civil Eng 5 0 0.00% 0 0CEAS Comp Sciences & Info 7 1 14.29% 0 0 0.00%CEAS Computer Science 7 1 14.29% 0 0 0.00%CEAS Construction Management 7 0 0.00% 0 0CEAS Electronics & Comp Science33 2 6.06% 2 0 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Energy 3 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%CEAS Engineering Education 4 2 50.00% 0 0 0.00%CEAS Environmental Eng & Sci 11 2 18.18% 1 0 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Materials Eng 2 0 0.00% 0 0CEAS Mechanical Eng 25 1 4.00% 1 0 0.00% 0.00%CEAS Mechanical Eng Tech 5 2 40.00% 0 0 0.00%

Medicine College Total 156 39 25.00% 54 20 37.04% 33.90%COM Anesthesiology 5 0 0.00% 2 2 100.00% 100.00%COM Can/Cell Biology 21 7 33.33% 0 0 0.00%COM Dermatology 2 1 50.00% 1 1 100.00% 50.00%COM Emergency Medicine 1 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00%COM Environmental Health 29 11 37.93% 10 1 10.00% 8.33%COM Family Medicine 1 0 0.00% 3 2 66.67% 100.00%COM Hoxworth 1 0 0.00% 0 0COM Internal Medicine 17 7 41.18% 12 4 33.33% 36.36%COM Mol & Cellular Physiology 4 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00%COM Molecular Genetics 22 3 13.64% 1 0 0.00% 0.00%COM Neurology 2 0 0.00% 2 1 50.00% 100.00%COM Neurosurgery 1 1 100.00% 2 0 0.00% 0.00%COM Obstetrics & Gynecology 2 0 0.00% 0 0COM Ophthalmology 2 0 0.00% 3 2 66.67% 100.00%COM Pathology & Lab Medicine 12 4 33.33% 3 2 66.67% 33.33%COM Pediatrics 1 0 0.00% 0 0COM Pharm & Cell Biophysics 12 2 16.67% 1 0 0.00% 0.00%COM Physiology 9 2 22.22% 0 0 0.00%COM Psychiatry 6 1 16.67% 9 4 44.44% 80.00%COM Public Health 1 0 0.00% 1 0 0.00%COM Surgery 5 0 0.00% 2 1 50.00% 100.00%

487 105 21.56% 63 20 31.75% 16.00%

NOTE: Data reported by headcounts.SOURCE: G:\...\Raw Data\Indicator\UC_Indicator_Yr1.savDATE: As of 12/31/2012.

Tenured & Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track - % of All Women

STEM TOTAL

File: Macintosh HD:Users:NancieEhlert:Desktop:For Submission :UC_Indicator_Tables_Yr1_for UC.xlsTab: Table 3.1

TABLE 3.1 TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEW OUTCOMES BY GENDER: ASSISTANT (AND ASSOCIATE W/O TENURE) TO ASSOCIATE (W/ TENURE) - STEM DEPARTMENTS

Women Men Women Men Women Men @ Level Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MenArts and Sciences

Biological Sciences Asst Asc 1 1Chemistry Asst Asc 1 2 1 2Geography Asst Asc 1 1Mathematical Sciences Asc Asc 1 1Mathematical Sciences Asst Asc 1 1Psychology Asst Asc 1 1

Engineering & Applied ScienceAerospace Asst Asc 1 1Aerospace Asc Asc 1 1 1 1SEEBME Asc Asc 1 1 1 1SEEBME Asst Asc 1 1

MedicineCancer Biology Asst Asc 1 1 AsstMolecular and Cellular Physiology Asst Asc 1 1Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry, and MicrobiologyAsst Asc 1 1Physiology Asc Asc 1 1 AscTOTAL 4 14 4 12 0 2 0 0% of TOTAL 22% 78% 22% 67% 0% 11% 0% 0%% of GENDER 100% 100% 100% 86% 0% 14% 0% 0%

+ Withdrew P&T application from review process.

NOTE: Data reported by headcounts.SOURCE: Data Collected from colleges and departments.

Delays Withdrawals+ExtensionsEnding Rank

Left UniversityApplications submitted Fall 2011.

Up for Review2011-12 Outcomes

Starting Rank

Approvals Denials

Tables 4.1 Promotion Review Outcomes by Gender: Assoc to Full (and Full to Named Prof.) - STEM Departments

Women Men Women Men Women Men @ Level Women Men Women Men Women Men Women MenArts and Sciences

Geography Asc full 1 1Psychology Asc full 1 1

Engineering & Applied ScienceAerospace Asc full 1 1Dynamic Systems Asc full 1 1SEEBME Asc full 1 1 1 1 Asc

MedicineEnvironmental Health Asc full 1 1Pharmacology & Cell Biophysics Asc full 2 2TOTAL 2 7 1 7 1 0 0 0% of TOTAL 22% 78% 11% 78% 11% 0% 0% 0%% of GENDER 100% 100% 50% 100% 50% 0% 0% 0%

+ Withdrew P&T application from review process.

NOTE: Data reported by headcounts.SOURCE: Data Collected from colleges and departments.

Extensions Withdrawals+ Left UniversityEnding Rank

Up for Review2011-12 Outcomes

Applications submitted Fall 2011.

Starting RankApprovals Denials Delays


TABLE 5.1: YEARS IN RANK OF TENURED ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FOR STEM FACULTY HIRED AS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS (2012)

*Due to federal regulations, university revised the ethnic code structure and re-surveyed all faculty and staff during Fall 2009. The new structure allows employees to self-identify one or more ethnic codes. The code of "M" below is used to identify those individuals who selected more than one ethnic identity.

Years in Rank Ethnicity * WOMEN% of

WomenMEN

% of Men

0-2.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Am Ind/AN 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Caucasian 1 5.6% 8 11.8%Hawaiian/PI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Asian 2 11.1% 4 5.9%Multiple 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Unknown 0 0.0% 4 5.9%

TOTAL 3 16.7% 16 23.5%3-5.99 Black 0 0.0% 1 1.5

Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Am Ind/AN 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Caucasian 4 22.2% 9 13.2%Hawaiian/PI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Asian 1 5.6% 3 4.4%Multiple 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Unknown 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 5 27.8% 13 19.1%6-8.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


TOTAL 4 22.2% 10 14.7%9-11.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


TOTAL 0 0.0% 7 10.3%12-14.99 Black 0 0 0 0.0%

Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Am Ind/AN 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Caucasian 0 0.0% 2 2.9%Hawaiian/PI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Asian 0 0.0% 1 1.5%Multiple 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Uknown 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 0 0.0% 3 4.4%15 or more * Black 0 0 0 0.0%


TOTAL 6 33.3% 19 27.9%

SUMMARY Black 0 0.0% 1 1.5%Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Am Ind/AN 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Caucasian 11 61.1% 49 72.1%Hawaiian/PI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Asian 7 38.9% 13 19.1%Multiple 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Unknown 0 0.0% 3 4.4%

GRAND TOTAL: 18 100.0% 68 100.0%

By Classification:15 or more* # Faculty

RangeMean

MedianSt. Deviation

OVERALL:15 or more* # Faculty

RangeMean

MedianSt. Deviation

NOTE: Data reported by headcounts.SOURCE: HR data located in …

20.60000021.0000003.1358146

3.1885211

20.842105319.5000000 21.000000

15-24

19.8333333

3.1668975

16-24

25

1915-24

STEM

STEMWOMEN MEN

6


TABLE 5.2: YEARS IN RANK OF TENURED ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FOR STEM FACULTY HIRED AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS (2012)

*Due to federal regulations, university revised the ethnic code structure and re-surveyed all faculty and staff during Fall 2009. The new structure allows employees to self-identify one or more ethnic codes. The code of "M" below is used to identify those individuals who selected more than one ethnic identity.

Years in Rank Ethnicity* WOMEN% of

WomenMEN

% of Men

0-2.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Am Ind/AN 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Caucasian 7 36.8% 10 25.0%Hawaiian/PI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Asian 2 10.5% 3 7.5%Multiple 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Unknown 1 5.3% 5 12.5%

TOTAL 10 52.6% 18 45.0%3-5.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


TOTAL 4 21.1% 9 22..5%6-8.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


TOTAL 3 15.8% 5 12.5%9-11.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Hispanic 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Am Ind/AN 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Caucasian 1 5.3% 1 2.5%Hawaiian/PI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Asian 0 0.0% 1 2.5%Multiple 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Unkown 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

TOTAL 1 5.3% 2 5.0%12-14.99 Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


TOTAL 0 0.0% 2 5.0%15 or more * Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%


TOTAL 1 5.3% 4 10.0%

SUMMARY Black 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Hispanic 0 0.0% 3 7.5%Am Ind/AN 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Caucasian 14 73.7% 21 52.5%Hawaiian/PI 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Asian 3 15.8% 8 20.0%Multiple 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Unknown 1 5.3% 6 15.0%

GRAND TOTAL: 19 100.0% 40 100.0%

By Classification:15 or more* # Faculty

RangeMean

MedianSt. Deviation

OVERALL:15 or more* # Faculty

RangeMean

MedianSt. Deviation

NOTE: Data reported by headcounts.SOURCE:

0.5000000

16-17

516-17

16.800000017

.4472136

16.750000017 170

17

HR data located in …

STEM

STEMWOMEN MEN

1 417

File: Macintosh HD:Users:NancieEhlert:Desktop:Inicator Table PDF :Table 6_1.xlsTab: Table 6.1

TABLE 6.1: VOLUNTARY, NON-RETIREMENT ATTRITION, BY RANK, GENDER, ETHNICITY, AND DEPARTMENT - 2012Only Included Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty, i.e., Asst, Assoc, and Pro.*Due to federal regulations, university revised the ethnic code structure and re-surveyed all faculty and staff during Fall 2009. The new structure allows employees to self-identify one or more ethnic codes. The code of "M" below is used to identify those individuals who selected more than one ethnic identity.

Women Men Women Men Women MenArts and SciencesCollege Total 0 0 0 2 1 1

Chemistry Asian 0 0 0 1 0 0Chemistry White 0 0 0 0 1 0Geology White 0 0 0 0 0 1Physics White 0 0 0 1 0 0

Engineering & Applied ScienceCollege Total 1 1 0 1 0 1Architectural Eng White 1 0 0 0 0 0Chemical Eng White 0 0 0 0 0 1Mechanical Eng Asian 0 0 0 1 0 0Mechanical Eng Non-Resident Alien 0 1 0 0 0 0

Medicine College Total 2 1 1 2 0 0Can/Cell Biology Asian 0 1 0 0 0 0Environmental Health White 1 0 0 0 0 0Mol & Cellular Physiology White 0 0 0 1 0 0Ophthalmology Asian 0 0 0 1 0 0Pathology & Lab Medicine Asian 1 0 1 0 0 0

ETHNICITY SUBTOTAL Asian 1 1 1 3 0 0White 2 0 0 2 1 2

Non-Resident Alien 0 1 0 0 0 0STEM TOTAL ALL 3 2 1 5 1 2


12/31/12

Assistant Associate ProfessorYear Ending 12/31/2012

Ethnicity*

TABLE 6.1: RETIREMENT ATTRITION, BY RANK, GENDER, ETHNICITY, AND DEPARTMENT - 2012Only Included Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty, i.e., Asst, Assoc, and Pro.

The code of "M" below is used to identify those individuals who selected more than one ethnic identity.

Women Men Women Men Women MenArts and SciencesCollege Total 0 0 0 2 1 11

Biological Sciences White 0 0 0 0 1 1Chemistry White 0 0 0 0 0 2Geography White 0 0 0 0 0 1Geology White 0 0 0 0 0 1Mathematical Sciences Asian 0 0 0 0 0 1Mathematical Sciences White 0 0 0 1 0 2Psychology White 0 0 0 1 0 3

Engineering & Applied ScienceCollege Total 0 0 0 1 0 2Aerospace Eng Asian 0 0 0 0 0 1Computer Science White 0 0 0 0 0 1Electronics & Comp ScienceWhite 0 0 0 1 0 0

Medicine College Total 0 0 1 1 1 4Can/Cell Biology White 0 0 0 1 0 1Environmental Health White 0 0 0 0 1 0Family Medicine White 0 0 0 0 0 1Internal Medicine Non-Resident Alien 0 0 1 0 0 0Mol & Cellular Physiology White 0 0 0 0 0 1Pharm & Cell Biophysics Asian 0 0 0 0 0 1

ETHNICITY SUBTOTAL Asian 0 0 0 0 0 3White 0 0 0 4 2 15

Non-Resident Alien 0 0 1 0 0 0STEM TOTAL ALL 0 0 1 4 2 17


12/31/12

*Due to federal regulations, university revised the ethnic code structure and re-surveyed all faculty and staff during Fall 2009. The new structure allows employees to self-identify one or more ethnic codes.

Ethnicity*Year Ending 12/31/2012

Assistant Associate Professor

File: Macintosh HD:Users:NancieEhlert:Desktop:Inicator Table PDF :Table 6_1.xlsTab: Table 7.1

TABLE 7.1: NEW TENURED AND TENURE SYSTEM STEM FACULTY HIRES, BY RANK, GENDER AND ETHNICITY - 2012Only Included Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty, i.e., Asst, Assoc, and Pro.*Due to federal regulations, university revised the ethnic code structure and re-surveyed all faculty and staff during Fall 2009. The new structure allows employees to self-identify one or more ethnic codes. The code of "M" below is used to identify those individuals who selected more than one ethnic identity.

+ Includes Endowed Professorships.

Women Men Women Men Women MenArts and Sciences College Total 4 1 0 0 0 0

Geology White 1 1 0 0 0 0Mathematical SciencesNon-Resident Alien 2 0 0 0 0 0Psychology White 1 0 0 0 0 0

Engineering & Applied Science College Total 0 0 0 2 0 0Aerospace Eng Asian 0 0 0 1 0 0Aerospace Eng Non-Resident Alien 0 0 0 1 0 0

Medicine College Total 0 2 1 1 0 0Environmental Health Asian 0 0 1 0 0 0Internal Medicine Asian 0 0 0 1 0 0Internal Medicine White 0 1 0 0 0 0Pharm & Cell BiophysicsNon-Resident Alien 0 1 0 0 0 0

ETHNICITY (STEM) Asian 0 0 1 2 0 0White 2 2 0 0 0 0

Non-Resident Alien 2 1 0 1 0 0STEM TOTAL TOTAL 4 3 1 3 0 0


12/31/12

Ethnicity*Year Ending 12/31/2012

Assistant Associate Professor+

File: Table 6_1.xlsTab: Table 8.0

TABLE 8: NUMBER OF TENURE/TENURE-TRACK FEMALE FACULTY IN UNIT AND/OR UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP POSITIONS - 2012

LEADERSHIP POSITION (DEPT/COLLEGE)WOMEN ALL

Dean 0 3Associate Dean 6 15Assistant Dean 3 3Chair 2 10Department Head 3 8Associate Department Head 0 1Director 14 47Associate Director 1 1Assistant Director 0 1SUBTOTAL (DEPT) 29 89

LEADERSHIP POSITION (SR. FACULTY) WOMEN ALLProfessor 29 231Named/Endowed Professor 2 6University Distinguished Professor 2 11SUBTOTAL (SR. FACULTY) 33 248

LEADERSHIP (POWERFUL COMMITTEES @ COLLEGE LEVEL) WOMEN ALL WOMEN ALL WOMEN ALLReappointment, Promotion &Tenure 7 9 2 7 3 12Senate 16 37 2 7 8 39Research Committee 2 11SUBTOTAL (POWERFUL COMMITTEES) 23 46 4 14 13 62

LEADERSHIP (POWERFUL COMMITTEES @UNIVERSITY LEVEL)Academic CommitteeAcademic Affairs CommitteeBudget and Priorities CommitteeCommittee on Committees Council of Deans Diversity Council Executive Committee Faculty Senate Governance CommitteeHuman Relations Committee Information Technology Committee Planning Committee President's Budget CommitteePresident's Cabinet Research and Scholarship CommitteeSUBTOTAL (POWERFUL COMMITTEES @UNIVERSITY LEVEL)

LEADERSHIP POSITION (UNIVERSITY LEVEL)

President 1 0 1

7 0 7

9

MALE FEMALE TOTAL

115 90 205

3 4 7147 3 10

7

5 4

19 14

23 49

STEM

10

7 8 15

7 21

1

7 10 17

338 2

A&S CEAS COM

MALE FEMALE TOTAL

6 7

13 3 16

1 6

261

3 4 7

6 7

List of ADVANCE Data Indicators TablesTable ANNUAL TABLES

1.1NUMBER AND PERCENT OF TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY IN STEM BY GENDER, RANK AND DEPARTMENT

1.2NUMBER AND PERCENT OF WOMEN (TENURED AND TENURE TRACK) FACULTY IN STEM BY ETHNICITY, RANK AND DEPARTMENT - 10/1/2012

2 STEM DEPARTMENTAL FACULTY GENDER COMPOSITION BY APPOINTMENT TYPE

3.1TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEW OUTCOMES BY GENDER: ASSISTANT (AND ASSOCIATE W/O TENURE) TO ASSOCIATE (W/ TENURE) - STEM DEPARTMENTS

4.1PROMOTION REVIEW OUTCOMES BY GENDER: ASSOC TO FULL (AND FULL TO NAMED PROF.) - STEM DEPARTMENTS

5.1YEARS IN RANK OF TENURED ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FOR STEM FACULTY HIRED AS ASSISTANT PROFESSORS (2012)

5.2YEARS IN RANK OF TENURED ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS FOR STEM FACULTY HIRED AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS (2012)

6.1VOLUNTARY, NON-RETIREMENT ATTRITION, BY RANK, GENDER, ETHNICITY, AND DEPARTMENT - 2012

6.2 RETIREMENT ATTRITION, BY RANK, GENDER, ETHNICITY, AND DEPARTMENT - 2012

7.1NEW TENURED AND TENURE SYSTEM STEM FACULTY HIRES, BY RANK, GENDER AND ETHNICITY - 2012

8NUMBER OF TENURE/TENURE-TRACK FEMALE FACULTY IN UNIT AND/OR UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP POSITIONS - 2012

Miami University 408 McGuffey Hall Oxford, OH 45056

Phone: 513-529-1686 Fax: 513-529-2110 Website: http://ohioeval.muohio.edu

Evaluation of Leadership, Empowerment, and

Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati

Year 1 Report 2012-2013

Evaluation UC LEAF i

Please cite as follows: Woodruff, S. B., Morio, K. L., & Li, Y. (2013). Evaluation of Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati, 2012-2013. Oxford, OH: Miami University, Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education. Distributed by Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education Sarah B. Woodruff, Director 408 McGuffey Hall Miami University Oxford, Ohio 45056

Evaluation UC LEAF ii

Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati

Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education

Miami University Oxford, Ohio

Sarah B. Woodruff Principal Investigator Yue Li Senior Statistician and Project Manager Kristen Morio Research Associate

Evaluation UC LEAF iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 12

Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 12

Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Participants ................................................................................................................................. 15

Instruments ................................................................................................................................ 15

University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey (Fall 2013) ......................................... 15

The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol ................................................................... 15

Data Collection ............................................................................................................................ 15

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 16

Indicator Data ......................................................................................................................... 16

Interview Data ........................................................................................................................ 17

Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Evaluation of Processes and Project Implementation ...................................................................... 18

University of Cincinnati LEAF Project Launch Event .................................................................... 18

Indicator Data ............................................................................................................................. 18

Baseline Indicator Data ............................................................................................................ 18

Match IHE Comparison Data ..................................................................................................... 19

Interview Data ............................................................................................................................ 21

Faculty Retention Study ............................................................................................................... 24

Continuing Evaluation Activities ........................................................................................................ 26

Summary and Observations .............................................................................................................. 27

Notable Observations ............................................................................................................... 27

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix A. University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey ................................................ 29

Appendix B. ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol ............................................................... 49

Appendix C. University of Cincinnati Faculty Retention Study Report .................................................... 50

Evaluation UC LEAF iv

List of Tables

Table 1. UC LEAF Evaluation Plan External Evaluation Activities and Timeline ............................... 13 Table 2. UC LEAF Institutional Site Characteristics ..................................................................... 20

Table 3. UC LEAF Department Crosswalk, University of Cincinnati, SUNY Buffalo, and University of Kentucky ............................................................................................................. 20

Evaluation UC LEAF 12

Introduction

Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education (E & A Center) is the external evaluator for the University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (UC LEAF) project. The UC LEAF project is funded through an Institutional Transformation (IT) grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Dr. Sarah B. Woodruff, Miami University, is the Principal Investigator for the evaluation and Kristen Morio, Research Associate, is the Project Director. Yue Li, is the Senior Statistician and Project Manager for the evaluation. This report is divided into four sections. Section one provides background information about the UC LEAF project and its goals. Section two provides information and findings from Year 1 evaluation and project activities. Section three provides future evaluation plans and ongoing evaluation activities. Section four summarizes observations of the Year 1 evaluation.

Project Description

The University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (UC LEAF) project is an institutional transformation project focusing on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of female Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) faculty at the University of Cincinnati, in Cincinnati, Ohio. The project is funded by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program. Not unlike other large institutions of higher education, University of Cincinnati has few female faculty in STEM departments, particularly women from underrepresented minority groups. Women also occupy few leadership positions. Due to the large number of STEM faculty that are nearing the age of retirement, new hires to the STEM departments in the next few years will have a great impact on the diversity of STEM faculty at UC. Using (a) bottom-up initiatives targeted to women faculty; (b) top-down leadership reform initiatives; and (c) advocacy and accountability initiatives that coordinate the top-down and bottom-up change, the project proposes to improve the climate for women faculty at the University of Cincinnati. University President, Santa Ono, along with a carefully selected team that includes male and female, White and non-White, university representatives, professors, Deans, and diversity leaders, will use the UC LEAF project as a vehicle to change the climate at the University of Cincinnati. The project’s three goals are:

• Goal 1: Improve pathways for women faculty, including women faculty of color, in STEM by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement;

• Goal 2: Transform the climate for STEM faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress, equity, and an inclusive culture; and

• Goal 3: Top-down and bottom-up approaches will be mutually reinforcing and foster shared responsibility.


Evaluation

The external evaluation focuses on assessing the project’s progress toward its goals and monitoring its implementation at the department, college, and institution levels. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected to provide summative analyses for the Project Team. E & A Center staff ensure: (a) that data collection instruments and protocols are valid and reliable; (b) that data analyses are appropriate and accurate; and (c) that findings are based on rigorous internal evaluation activities. During Year 1 of the evaluation, E & A Center staff worked with the UC LEAF Project Team in the development and refinement of the project evaluation plan including external evaluation activities (Table 1). The Project Team provided E & A Center staff with baseline data to incorporate into the evaluation. Research was conducted by the Evaluation Team to identify universities that could be used as match institutions of higher education (IHE). The E & A Center staff worked with the UC LEAF Project Team in the development and refinement of the University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey. The E & A Center staff worked with the UC LEAF Project Team to conduct a study of faculty retention for the past 23 years. The E & A Center staff also attended the UC LEAF project launch event on April 8, 2013. The E & A Center staff and the Project Team communicated via email and several conference calls to discuss the project’s evaluation and progress. During Year 1, the E & A Center Evaluation Team also attended several face-to-face meetings with the Project Research Team. Table 1. UC LEAF Evaluation Plan External Evaluation Activities and Timeline

Project Goal Summative Evaluation Question

Project Activities Evidence Needed Evaluation

Components/Activities Schedule

Improve pathways for women faculty, including women faculty of color, in STEM by broadening recruitment, improving hiring, increasing retention, and promoting advancement.

Has the UC LEAF initiative increased the number of women in STEM faculty positions and improved their outcomes?

Bottom Up: • PD Workshops • LEAF Grants

Measurable change in attitudes, knowledge, and awareness among key decision makers (committee members and dept. heads).

Increase in the percentage of: (a) women candidates for STEM positions; (b) women hired for STEM positions, (c) tenure-track women who are promoted and tenured, and (d) women tenured associate professors who are promoted to full professor.

Women STEM faculty will demonstrate: (a) experience writing and reviewing grants; (b) acquisition of seed funding; (c) participation in advanced training; and (d) development of academic and professional leadership skills.

Conduct and analyze interviews of committee members and chairs, and department heads.

Years 2 - 5

Conduct and analyze salary study data.

Years 1, 3, & 5

Conduct and analyze space study data.

As Needed

Top Down: • Dean, Heads,

Committee workshops

• Best practices Seminar Series

Collect and analyze NSF-required indicator data including: (a) new hires; (b) promotion and tenure outcomes; (c) attrition; and (d) leadership composition.

Years 1 - 5

Conduct and analyze faculty retention study data.

Years 1 & 5

Conduct and analyze interviews/focus groups of STEM Faculty.

Years 2 - 5


Transform the climate for STEM faculty by creating social and collaborative mentoring networks to promote intellectual progress, equity, and an inclusive culture.

What is the nature and extent of the impact of UC LEAF project activities on the climate for STEM faculty?

Bottom Up: • Learning

Communities • Visiting Scholars

Program

Women STEM faculty will report: (a) improved intellectual and social support; (b) greater visibility and recognition of accomplishment; and (c) more networking and collaboration opportunities. Women STEM faculty will increase participation in: (a) mentoring programs; and (b) leadership roles at the University. Increase in the percentage of women STEM scientists who report: (a) feeling engaged and empowered; (b) having effective mentoring; (c) feeling they are achieving to their full potential. Decrease in the percentage of women STEM scientists who report concerns about work-life balance and in discrepancies between men and women STEM scientists on all the above measures.

Conduct and analyze interviews/focus groups of STEM Faculty.

Years 2 - 5

Top Down: • Unit-level logic

model development and implementation

Conduct and analyze work environment survey.

Years 2 & 5

Top-down and bottom-up approaches will be mutually reinforcing and foster shared responsibility.

To what extent has the UC LEAF initiative promoted sustainability of university efforts to promote equity and diversity and ensure accountability for outcomes?

Top Down/ Bottom Up: • Process reports on

initiative successes and failures

• Facilitate candid exchange between faculty and program staff and between faculty and administration

• All successful LEAF initiatives will be supported internally for sustainability.

AAC members are informed and knowledgeable of LEAF program activities. STEM faculty are aware of and utilize AAC as an ally.

Conduct and analyze stakeholder interview/ focus groups (e.g., AAC members, other key informants, project personnel, and faculty focus groups).

Years 2 - 5

Monitor sustainability efforts.

Year 5

a UC LEAF Internal Evaluation Team will monitor progress of logic model development and implementation.


Participants

The primary target population for the UC LEAF project and evaluation are University of Cincinnati STEM faculty members. Instruments

University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey (Fall 2013) The University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey was adapted from the 2013 Michigan State University Work Environment Survey and the 2011 Purdue University Work Environment Survey and revised by the UC LEAF Project Team and E & A Center staff. The instrument collects STEM faculty-level data on human resources processes as well as campus and department climate. The original instrument was developed by the MSU ADAPP-ADVANCE Project Team and pilot tested on the Michigan State University (MSU) campus in 2009 and then administered institution-wide by MSU in 2009 and 2013 and by Purdue University in 2011. The online version of this instrument was developed by the E & A Center using Qualtrics® and is still under revision. It will be administered to masked1 email addresses of all tenure-track and fixed-term faculty at UC in Fall 2013. The draft of the 2013 University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey can be found in Appendix A. The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol was developed by the E & A Center to collect interview data from key informants involved in the UC LEAF project. The protocol consisted of 6 items collecting information regarding the interviewee’s personal views, responsibilities, and hopes for the UC LEAF ADVANCE project and their personal experiences as a member of the University of Cincinnati community. The ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol can be found in Appendix B. Data Collection

Interviews with project personnel and other key informants were conducted by the external evaluator as an initial exploration of the UC LEAF project and University of Cincinnati institutional processes, structures, and norms that may be relevant to project goals and activities. Key informants were purposefully selected from members of the Project Leadership Team, Internal Advisory Committee, and the Accountability and Advocacy Council. Ten interviews were scheduled and completed between March 22 and May 17, 2013. Interviews were conducted by the PI of the external evaluation, Dr. Sarah Woodruff. Most interviews were conducted in person, while a few were conducted via phone, and each lasted approximately one hour. An interview protocol was followed (Appendix B) but interviewees also were encouraged to discuss issues of concern that were not specifically related to interview questions. A rich set of longitudinal human resource (HR) data for UC STEM faculty were collected by the UC LEAF Project Team and provided to the E & A Center between Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. These data include faculty hiring, promotion, and attrition information from 1990 to 2013 along with gender, race/ethnicity, college/department assignment, and highest degree earned. These HR data were used to conduct the faculty retention study. The complicated data cleaning procedures were done in a collaborative manner between the UC LEAF Project Team and the E & A Center during the UC LEAF Project Year 1. The initial data set included over 40,000 lines of records detailing faculty (one record for each faculty, each year) employed by the university in 1989 or newly hired since 1989 in all colleges/departments across different UC campuses. Institutional structural changes, inaccuracy and inconsistency of earlier data records, and large numbers of departments/units and employee titles were some of the obstacles encountered during the cleaning of 24 years of data. For example, departments in the College of Engineering (COE) together with some departments from other colleges were restructured as the College of Engineering and Applied 1 The masking process produces unidentifiable email addresses to protect the identity of respondents.


Science (CEAS) in 2011. New departments were added into COE (or CEAS) and the College of Medicine (COM) over the years and the names of departments also changed across years. As of 2013, the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S) has 8 STEM departments, CEAS has 15 department/units, and COM has 25 departments/units. In addition, besides the unqualified titles (i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor), UC offers over 40 qualified titles to its faculty, such as “Clinic,” “Educator,” “Field service,” and “Research,” at all academic rank levels. In general, the unqualified titles are in the tenured and tenure-track system, while the qualified titles are not. However, tenure status was not consistently recorded across the type of titles and across the years.

For the purpose of evaluation of this project, only faculty from the STEM departments of A&S, CEAS (or COE), and COM were included in the data set. Only unqualified titles were considered in the tenured and tenure-track system. In addition, the only qualified titles included in the faculty retention study were the “Research” titles. Due to some missing records from early years, only faculty hired since 1990 were included in the retention study. Despite the difficulties encountered during the data cleaning, the accessibility of this large, longitudinal database at UC during the first year of UC LEAF project will provide the evaluation team various opportunities to mine the data in different ways and triangulate these data with data collected from other sources during the life of the project.

Baseline indicator data (2012) for UC STEM faculty were collected by the Project Team from Human Resources data and information provided by the Provost’s office and provided to the E & A Center in June 2013. Electronic communications have been ongoing, starting January 2013, with potential match institutions of higher education. Preliminary data have been collected from The State University of New York, Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo). Institutional demographic data from the 2011-2012 Common Data Set were collected through university websites.

STEM faculty 2012 salary data were collected for UC STEM tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well as faculty with “Research” titles, in conjunction with the HR data. Gender equity in faculty salaries will be explored using regression modeling based on these data while controlling for other explanatory factors, such as race/ethnicity, discipline, current academic rank, years of prior experience, years of experience at current rank, and tenure status. This study will be conducted during Fall 2013 and will be reported in the Year 2 evaluation report.

In addition, STEM faculty 2013 office, laboratory, and other types of work space data were collected for UC STEM tenured and tenure-track faculty, as well as faculty with “Research” titles, in conjunction with the HR data. Gender equity in faculty work space will be explored using regression modeling based on these data while controlling for other explanatory factors, such as faculty race/ethnicity, discipline, current academic rank, years of prior experience, years of experience working at the current rank, and tenure status. This study will be conducted during Fall 2013 and also will be reported in the Year 2 evaluation report.

Data Analysis

Indicator Data Since only baseline (2012) indicator data were available, no year-to-year comparison analysis was conducted for this report. Once Year 1 (2013) indicator data are collected, a year-to-year comparison of faculty composition by gender, rank, and discipline will be conducted. Comparable match data from chosen IHE also were not available at this time. Once these match IHE data are collected, a cross-institution analysis will be conducted each year to compare the faculty composition by gender, rank, and discipline with peer institutions. In order to ensure the comparability between UC and the match IHEs, data from the 2011-2012 Common Data Set were collected electronically through available sources from each institution’s website and were used to compare demographic characteristics such as racial composition of students, gender and racial composition of faculty, and geographic location.


Interview Data All data from interviews with project personnel and other key informants were summarized to reflect themes that emerged from all discussions. Data were synthesized to protect the identity of individual interviewees and intended as formative feedback to project personnel for planning purposes. At the time of this report, analysis of the interview data is ongoing.

Following complete and iterative analysis of all interview data, these data will inform recommendations concerning: (a) strategies for monitoring processes and improving the effectiveness of project processes and structures, (b) interventions to improve collaboration among project groups, and (c) any potential need to reassess project goals in light of progress or barriers. These recommendations will be shared with UC LEAF project leaders in Fall 2013 and discussed and contextualized in the Year 2 External Evaluation Report in June 2014.

Faculty Retention Study Nonparametric survival analysis was conducted using human resources data on 722 tenured and tenured-track STEM faculty, as well as faculty with “Research” titles, who were employed by UC since 1990 in the three colleges (A&S, CEAS, and COM). The attrition2 of these faculty members was tracked between 1990 and 2013. Gender differences in faculty retention/attrition rates and patterns during the past 23 years were explored for all faculty, at the college level, and by each academic rank. In addition, faculty members were categorized into three hiring cohorts: Cohort 1 – hired between 1990 and 1997; Cohort 2 – hired between 1998 and 2005; and Cohort 3 – hired between 2006 and 2013. Gender comparisons also were conducted for each hiring cohort. A summary of faculty retention study results can be found in the Findings section of this report; full results from the study can be found in Appendix C.

2 Attrition includes both voluntary non-retirement and retirement/deceased.


Findings

Evaluation of Processes and Project Implementation

The University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for Women STEM Faculty (UC LEAF) project held their project launch event in April 2013.

University of Cincinnati LEAF Project Launch Event On Monday, April 8, 2013, the University of Cincinnati Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (UC LEAF) Project Team hosted their launch event at the Tangeman University Center (TUC) at the University of Cincinnati. The meeting agenda included a large group session as well as two breakout sessions; one specific to women STEM faculty. Dr. Melanie Cushion, LEAF Program Director, facilitated the sessions. Between 90 and 100 project personnel and University of Cincinnati faculty and staff, including members of the UC LEAF Leadership Team, were present for the large group session; roughly 65 of these participants were female. President Ono welcomed the participants and offered opening remarks from the institutional perspective. He also provided information regarding institutional commitment. President Ono encouraged faculty and staff to participate in UC LEAF project activities and to commit to the project objectives. Following President Ono’s introduction, keynote speaker, Scott E. Page presented his research and experience with improving collective performance and decision-making through diversity. Two simultaneous break-out sessions were offered following the keynote session. One of the break-out sessions was offered specifically to women STEM faculty and included a panel of senior women STEM faculty who responded to prepared questions as well as impromptu questions from the audience. Approximately 25-30 women attended this session. The other breakout session offered was hosted by the keynote speaker, Scott E. Page and was intended as a working group to discuss and work through strategies for successfully accomplishing UC LEAF project goals. This session was attended by 20-25 participants 6 of which were female. Indicator Data

One of the main goals of the UC LEAF project is to increase the number of women in STEM faculty positions and to improve the success of all women STEM faculty, as measured by outcomes related to their retention and promotion. In order to assess the practical significance of gains for this goal at the University of Cincinnati, indicator data were collected and will be monitored across project years. Indicator data for University of Cincinnati will be used in two ways for the external evaluation. First, in addition to the baseline data collected this year, indicator data will be collected and organized for future analyses including year-to-year project impact analysis. Second, two similar universities were chosen for future comparative analysis to determine the relative significance of change at UC. Baseline Indicator Data The required indicator data tables (submitted with the UC LEAF project annual report) provide an overview of progress of the UC LEAF initiative on required NSF indicator measures. While these data represent some aspects regarding the status of women STEM faculty, they are not particularly informative when reviewed individually. While the indicator data tables are very useful for observing


changes across years, they may obscure movement of women faculty between ranks and do not provide information on the overall retention of women STEM faculty. For this reason, the Evaluation Team will synthesize independent sets of indicator data to provide a more detailed picture of faculty movement during the years of the project. These syntheses will be presented in the Year 2 report. For Year 1, some historical baseline indicator data were collected. For Year 2, comparative data will be collected. Data available for comparison will include distribution of tenured and tenure-track STEM faculty, new hires, promotion with and without tenure, retirement and non-retirement attrition, and leadership positions of STEM departments in the STEM colleges. Changes in numbers of female faculty will be compared to changes in numbers of male faculty for each category and will be reported beginning in the Year 2 evaluation report. A full year-to-year analysis in which hiring, promotion, and attrition will be traced from the baseline year.

Match IHE Comparison Data A primary goal of the UC LEAF Project is to increase the number of women in STEM faculty positions and to improve their success as measured by outcomes related to retention and promotion. In order to assess the practical significance of gains for this goal at University of Cincinnati, two comparable institutions of higher education were chosen and will be monitored across project years. The State University of New York (SUNY) Buffalo and the University of Kentucky (UK) were suggested by the Project Team as frequently used peer institutions. Data analysis using the 2011-2012 Common Data Set was completed to determine whether peer institutions were demographically equivalent based upon location and an initial comparison of faculty and student body composition and characteristics (% female and % minority). The number of comparable departments within the STEM colleges were then collected through university websites. Table 2 displays pertinent institutional characteristics for University of Cincinnati and the comparison sites and Table 3 displays a crosswalk of academic departments for each institution. In project Years 2-5, the Evaluation Team will collect data from internal contacts at the peer sites who have access to institutional data. The State University of New York Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo) and the University of Kentucky have agreed to cooperate with this evaluation and provide data for this comparative study. To date, preliminary data has been received from SUNY Buffalo. To the extent possible, E & A Center staff will attempt to collect comparable data from each site and apply the following assumptions:

1. Indicator data for the University of Cincinnati will be collected for only colleges and departments identified as STEM (and recognized by NSF as such) and will be included in these evaluation analyses.

2. The data will represent headcount data rather than full-time equivalent (FTE) data, but appointments of less than 50% time will not be counted.

3. Data will not represent adjunct faculty members, instructors (not identified as professors), or any staff appointments. It may be possible that courtesy appointments will be included, as it is not possible to distinguish these categories amongst available data.

4. Dual–appointment faculty members (i.e., those working in two or more colleges) may be double counted, but these individuals represent a relatively small proportion of the population.


Table 2. UC LEAF Institutional Site Characteristics

University of

Cincinnati University of

Buffalo University of

Kentucky

Locale Midwest Midwest Midwest

Undergraduate Student Enrollment

23,096 19,334 22,711

Demographics of Student Body

African American 7.8% American Indian 0.2% Asian American 2.9% Hispanic 2.5%

African American 6.5% American Indian 0.2% Asian American 10.4% Hispanic: 7.2%

African American 3.8% American Indian 0.2% Asian American 1.5% Hispanic: 2.9%

Number of Full-time Faculty

1,769 1,676 1,725

Demographics of Faculty

14.9% Non-White 46.4% Female



STEM Initiatives 2012 ADVANCE IT grant

recipient None Reported None Reported

Note. Data collected from 2011-2012 Common Data Set. Table 3. UC LEAF Department Crosswalk, University of Cincinnati, SUNY Buffalo, and University of Kentucky

University of

Cincinnati SUNY

Buffalo University of

Kentucky

Arts and Sciences

Anthropology Anthropology Anthropology

Biological Sciences Biological Sciences Biology

Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry

Geography Geography Geography

Geology Geology Earth & Environmental Sciences

Mathematical Sciences Mathematics Mathematics

Physics Physics Physics and Astronomy

Psychology Psychology Psychology

College of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Aerospace Engineering Mechanical & Aerospace —

Biomedical Engineering Biomedical Biosystems Engineering (?)

Chemical Engineering Chemical & Biological Chemical Engineering

Civil Engineering Civil, Structural, and Environmental Civil Engineering

Computer Science Computer Science & Engineering Computer Science

Construction Management Industrial & Systems Engineering

Department of CEAS — —

Electronic & Computing Systems Electrical Electrical Engineering


College of Engineering and Applied Sciences

University of Cincinnati

SUNY Buffalo

University of Kentucky

Energy — —

Engineering Education — —

Environmental Engineering & Science

— —

Fire Science — —

Materials Engineering — Materials Engineering

Mechanical Engineering Mechanical & Aerospace Mechanical Engineering

Mechanical Engineering Technology — —

College of Medicine (School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences)

Anesthesiology Anesthesiology Anesthesiology

Anesthesiology Research — —

Can/Cell Biology — —

Center for Imaging Research Radiology Radiology

Public Health Sciences — —

Dermatology — —

Emergency Medicine Emergency Medicine Emergency Medicine

Environmental Health — —

Family Medicine Family Medicine Family and Community Medicine

Hoxworth Research — —

Internal Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine

Medical Education — —

Molecular & Cellular Physiology — —

Molecular Genetics — —

Neurology Neurology Neurology

Neurosurgery Neurosurgery Neurosurgery

Obstetrics & Gynecology Gynecology-Obstetrics Obstetrics & Gynecology

Ophthalmology Ophthalmology Ophthalmology

Pathology & Lab Medicine Pathology and Anatomical Sciences

Pathology & Laboratory

Pediatrics Pediatrics Pediatrics

Pharmacology & Cell Biophysics Pharmacology & Toxicology Molecular & Biomedical Pharmacology

Physiology Physiology & Biophysics Physiology

Psychiatry Psychiatry Psychiatry

Radiation Oncology Radiation Oncology Radiation Medicine

Surgery Surgery Surgery

Interview Data

Key informant interviews were conducted by the external evaluator as an initial exploration of the UC LEAF project and University of Cincinnati institutional processes, structures, and norms that may be relevant to project goals and activities. Key informants were purposefully selected from members of the Project Leadership Team, Internal Advisory Committee, and the Accountability and Advocacy Council. Ten interviews were scheduled and completed between March 22 and May 17, 2013. Interviews were


conducted by the PI of the external evaluation, Dr. Sarah Woodruff. Most interviews were conducted in person, while a few were conducted via phone, and each lasted approximately one hour. An interview protocol was followed but interviewees also were encouraged to discuss issues of concern that were not specifically related to interview questions. All data were synthesized to protect the identity of individual interviewees. The data collected during these semi-structured interviews are intended as formative feedback to project personnel for planning purposes. At the time of this report, analysis of the interview data is ongoing. A brief descriptive, thematic summary of the aggregate data is presented here. All data and observations are tentative and subject to verification by project personnel. The interviews sought to collect data to inform these questions:

1. To what extent are the goals and philosophies of key UC LEAF project personnel internally consistent, aligned with those stated by the project, and reflective of the project conceptual 3-pronged approach—bottom-up, top-down and advocacy and accountability?

2. What is the shared understanding of the leadership and management roles and responsibilities of

key UC LEAF project personnel and groups? To what extent do the current leadership and management structures and processes facilitate or inhibit efficient project group and individual work?

3. What is the relationship among LEAF initiatives directed by each of the project’s committees and

key personnel? To what extent: (a) are the activities of each group adding value to those of other committees/staff, (b) are there (missed) opportunities for cross-pollination, (c) are the activities aligned with UC LEAF vision and mi ssion, and (d) are there gaps or overlaps in the work of the committees?

Following complete and iterative analysis of all interview data, these data will inform recommendations concerning: (a) strategies for monitoring processes and improving the effectiveness of project processes and structures, (b) interventions to improve collaboration among project groups, and (c) any potential need to reassess project goals in light of progress or barriers. These recommendations will be shared with UC LEAF project leaders in Fall 2013 and discussed and contextualized in the Year 2 External Evaluation Report in June 2014. Ø To what extent are the goals and philosophies of key UC LEAF project personnel internally consistent,

aligned with those stated by the project, and reflective of the project conceptual 3-pronged approach—bottom-up, top-down, and advocacy and accountability?

The most prominent themes, related to this question, emerging from interviews included: high expectations for changing university culture and enhancing faculty “community”; desire for UC LEAF to be viewed as more than a “women’s initiative”; general agreement on priority project goals and activities; and general agreement on potential obstacles to project progress. All interviewees shared expectations that UC LEAF would positively impact university culture, reduce intolerance of difference and isolation of marginalized groups, and facilitate networking opportunities for women faculty. All interviewees were able to clearly articulate the broad goals of the project and expressed high levels of commitment to those goals. Though most interviewees were passionate about the project’s goals and enthusiastic about the project, it was not observed that any interviewee’s commitment to the project was based upon a personal agenda that may have impeded the individual’s ability to fulfill commitments to the project. In other words, interviewees seemed to maintain sufficient objectivity regarding the project’s issues to fulfill their respective responsibilities effectively. Most interviewees noted a desire for UC LEAF to be viewed as a vehicle for expanding the current view of diversity beyond issues of race/ethnicity and gender. One interviewee hoped that the initiative would promote a “more holistic view of high quality” – one that would be inclusive of all faculty. With very few


exceptions, interviewees were quite familiar with the issues faced by women faculty and believed that increasing the gender diversity of faculty was a positive and pressing need at UC. Interviewees expressed that priority activities of UC LEAF in Year 2 should include attention to search and hiring processes and collecting and using data (primarily Work Environment Survey data) to increase awareness of diversity and equity issues. Interviewees also agreed that a potential barrier to moving the project forward was “institutional rhetoric” as a substitute for authentic commitment of leadership to make change. Ø What is the shared understanding of the leadership and management roles and responsibilities of key

UC LEAF project personnel and groups? To what extent do the current leadership and management structures and processes facilitate or inhibit efficient project group and individual work?

The most prominent themes emerging from interviews included: issues and challenges related to communications, and perceptions regarding decision making authority, roles, and responsibilities. Not surprisingly, communications, both internal and external, were discussed by all interviewees. Issues and challenges regarding internal communications were mentioned more frequently than those related to communications with individuals and groups outside of the project team and committees. Communications “mix-ups” were described. Most interviewees agreed that communications should err on the side of being more inclusive, during the early stages of the project. Related to issues of communication were insights of most interviewees indicating a need for regularly scheduled, and in some cases, more frequent committee and project team meetings groups. Issues with external communications also were noted. Approximately half of those interviewed suggested that while the launch event was positively received, there was a low awareness of UC LEAF, even among women STEM faculty. Most interviewees agreed that there continues to be some confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of individuals and committees, and suggested that the project team should make it a priority to resolve and communicate decisions regarding “who is in charge of what.” Interviewees commented that the current project leadership and committee structure seemed appropriate but would reserve judgment until roles and responsibilities were better clarified. Ø What is the relationship among LEAF initiatives directed by each of the project’s committees and key

personnel? To what extent: (a) are the activities of each group adding value to those of other committees/staff, (b) are there (missed) opportunities for cross-pollination, (c) are the activities aligned with UC LEAF vision and mission, and (d) are there gaps or overlaps in the work of the committees?

Limited data were collected regarding this question, likely because most activities of the project are in development or in very early stages of implementation. The most prominent theme emerging from interviews was regarding the levels and types of involvement of project personnel and stakeholders. Interviewees generally indicated a desire to be more meaningfully involved in shaping the future of the project and agreed that the role and work of the committees has been unclear. Interviewees further agreed that the collective capacity and expertise of the committees is largely under-utilized at this time. Interviewees also concurred that project success would be dependent upon the leadership of properly positioned individuals who would hold others to high expectations.


Faculty Retention Study

In Spring 2013, Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center analyzed human resources data on 722 tenured, tenured-track, and fix-term3 STEM faculty4 employed by the University of Cincinnati since 1990 in the three UC LEAF participating colleges, i.e., the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S), the College of Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS),5 and the College of Medicine (COM). The attrition6 of these faculty members was tracked between 1990 and 2013. Faculty members were categorized into three hiring cohorts: Cohort 1 – hired between 1990 and 1997; Cohort 2 – hired between 1998 and 2005; and Cohort 3 – hired between 2006 and 2013. Since the data used to create the models only tracked faculty hiring and attrition since 1990, faculty hiring and departures prior to 1990 did not inform the survival analysis. This study has mined the University’s own rich data sources in order to provide robust analyses that can support the University in exploring the retention/attrition patterns of STEM women faculty. The models provide a snapshot of how successfully the University is addressing faculty retention issues. Over time, as more data are added to the models, they have the potential to predict with a high degree of accuracy retention outcomes for subgroups of faculty. Key findings of the analyses suggest: 1. Overall, the retention rates for STEM women faculty were similar to the rates for STEM men

faculty during the past 23 years. 54% of women and 52% of men faculty hired since 1990 were still working at the university in 2013. The median time to departure was 10 years for women and 9 years for men.

2. Patterns in STEM women and men faculty leaving the university were similar. Attrition for both genders is low during the first 3 years (3-6% of women and 7-8% of men were likely to leave UC), increased from Year 4 to Year 6 (10-12% of women and 9-11% of men were likely to leave UC), decreased in Year 7, and then returned to higher attrition rates in Year 8. Women’s attrition peaks again at a later stage of their careers at Year 17 (14%), while a similar peak of attrition is postponed to Year 22 for men (11%). No statistically significant gender differences were found regarding women’s and men’s rates of attrition.

3. Comparisons of time to departure for each hiring cohort, for each college, and for each rank

showed no statistically significant gender differences. However, potential differences in the survival times existed across colleges, with the College of Arts and Sciences demonstrating the longest median survival time for women faculty (17 years) and the College of Medicine having the shortest time (8 years).

4. From date of hire, higher percentages of women than men stayed at the university in all

comparisons, except for Cohort 1 (hired between 1990-1997; 30% of women and 38% of men

3 Tenured and tenure-track faculty only included Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors. Instructors and Adjunct titles were not included. Fix-term faculty only included Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, and Research Professor. Other qualified titles, such as Clinical, Educator, Field Service, and Librarian, were not included. 4 HR data also included 479 STEM faculty who were with the university in 1989. Among them, 142 faculty were still working at the university. However, the university database does not have consistent record of hiring data nor other HR information for these faculty. Therefore they were not included in this retention study. 5 College of Engineering (COE) became CEAS in 2011. Some faculty from the Department of Biomedical Engineering were included in CEAS if their initial college was categorized as COM/ENG, while some were included in COM if their initial college was categorized as COM. 6 Attrition includes both voluntary non-retirement and retirement/deceased.


were still at the university in 2013), for the College of Medicine (41% of women and 44% of men), and for those hired as associate professors (58% of women and 63% of men).

5. Although not statistically significant, female faculty at each rank had slightly shorter median survival times than did their male peers.

One advantage of this study is that by only counting faculty hired since 1990, the data set omits the left censored data, i.e., avoids underestimating the length of employment for those faculty hired before 1990. However, the limitation of this method is that faculty hired prior to 1990 and still working at the university were not represented in this data set. These are the faculty who have served at the university the longest. Therefore, the overall estimations of time to departure, as well the estimations at the college level and for each beginning rank (especially for those hired as assistant professors and associate professors), were underestimated. In addition, interpretation of some of the disaggregated results should be done with caution due to small sample sizes. As more data are added to this model over time, comparisons can be made between the retention of faculty hired prior to, during, and following the University’s targeted efforts to improve faculty quality and diversity. Currently, the model provides important and timely data that can inform areas for further investigation. Further analyses will provide a clearer picture of issues that may impact the retention of STEM women at the University of Cincinnati.


Continuing Evaluation Activities

Ohio’s Evaluation and Assessment Center (E & A Center) along with internal project evaluators developed a summative evaluation plan that included internal and external evaluation activities (included in the Year 1 Project Report). External evaluation activities included in this plan can be found in Table 1 of this report. The following activities are included in the evaluation plan:

1. The first institutional climate survey will be administered in the Fall 2013 and data collected will be analyzed by the E & A external evaluation team.

2. Continue to analyze interview data from key informants.

3. Collect and analyze data collected from project activities such as workshops and seminars.

4. Conduct focus groups and interviews of STEM faculty and STEM Department Heads.

5. Continue to collect, clean, and analyze indicator data, including hiring, promotion, attrition, and tenure outcomes.

6. Develop short reports, as requested, such as salary, space, and start-up package analysis.


Summary and Observations

Notable Observations This synthesis of preliminary data is not intended to render any judgment regarding project progress to date. These data will be reviewed and included in the Year 2 External Evaluation Report within the context of project goals. Brief observations of note include:

• All key informant interviewees were candid in their responses and genuinely interested in making contributions and receiving feedback to improve the project. Project leadership should carefully deliberate and then clearly communicate regarding the roles and responsibilities of affiliated groups and individuals in order to ensure that all resources are effectively aligned and directed toward project goals.

• Data collection efforts are commendable, especially for the longitudinal Human Resources database maintained by the University, considering the early stage of the project. The Evaluation Team will offer specific recommendations for future years of data collection in order to standardize collection activities. A precise plan will allow for more rigorous comparisons across years of the project.

• Successful project launch activities and promotional materials should start the project in the right direction in terms of developing faculty awareness. Some groups may not have been able to attend the launch event and therefore a plan for promoting the project further and disseminating remaining promotional materials would be recommended.

• Challenges related to communication are expected but should be addressed on a number of levels, particularly in areas where lack of or unclear communications are perceived to be detrimental to project progress. Though it may be helpful to employ a communications expert to advise this work, all project personnel should be more mindful of communications issues.

• Preliminary faculty retention study found no significant gender differences for UC STEM faculty retention rates and patterns. More data will be drawn from different sources during the next few years to provide a more complete picture of the diversity issues and faculty work environment at UC.


Appendices

Appendix A. University of Cincinnati Faculty Work Environment Survey ................................................ 29

Appendix B. ADVANCE Project Personnel Interview Protocol ............................................................... 49

Appendix C. University of Cincinnati Faculty Retention Study Report .................................................... 50

preview of award 1209169 - annual project report annual... · preview of award 1209169 - annual...

Documents