Table of Contents

Table 72: Professional History

Table 73: Household and Partner Employment Characteristics (Percentages)

Table 74a: Career Satisfaction

Table 74b: Career Satisfactions Scale and Item Ratings by Tenure Track Group

Table 75: Productivity

Table 76: Recognition

Table 77: Influence Over Educational Matters and Resources

Table 78: Efforts to Secure and Satisfaction with Resources

Table 79a: Frequency of Contract Negotiation and Renegotiation Items

Table 79b: Contract Negotiation and Renegotiation Items

Table 80: Teaching

Table 81: Service

Table 82a: Mentoring

Table 82b: Percent With No Mentoring in Each Area, for Assistant Professors Only

Table 83a: Stereotyping, Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Indicators

Table 83b: Gender Discrimination (Percentages)

Table 84: Departmental Climate Scales

Table 85: Institutional and Departmental Climate Ratings:

Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position

Table 86: Departmental Experiences Indicators:

Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position

Table 87: Personal and Position Indicators and Household Characteristics:

Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position

Table 88: Harassment–Relationship with Satisfaction & Climate Ratings

Table 89: Discrimination –Relationship with Satisfaction & Climate Ratings

Table 90: Response Rates by Track and Gender (Percentages)

Table 91: Professional History by Track

Table 92: Household & Partner Employment Characteristics by Track (Percentages)

Table 93: Indicators of Productivity by Track (Percentages)

Table 94: Productivity* by Track

Table 95: Recognition by Track (Percentages)

Table 96a: Career Satisfaction Ratings by Track

Table 96b: Career Satisfaction Item Ratings, Ranked by Ratings

Table 97a: Influence over Educational Decisions and Unit Resources by Track

Table 97b: Influence over Educational Decisions & Unit Resources by Rank

Table 98: Effort and Satisfaction with Resources by Track

Table 99a: Number of Items in Contract Negotiation by Track

Table 99b: Contract Negotiations by Track (Percentages)

Table 100: Teaching by Track

Table 101a: Mentoring of Junior Faculty by Track

Table 101b: Percent With No Mentoring in Each Area, Junior Faculty by Track

Table 102: Service by Track

Table 103: Stereotyping by Track

Table 104a: Discrimination by Track (Percentages)

Table 104b: Gender Discrimination by Track (Percentages)

Table 105: Sexual Harassment* by Track (Percentages)

Table 106: Department Climate Scales by Track

Table 107: Institutional and Departmental Climate Ratings: Correlations With

Overall Satisfaction with Position by Track

Table 108: Departmental Experiences Indicators: Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with

Position by Track

Table 109: Personal and Position Indicators and Household Characteristics: Correlations

With Overall Satisfaction with Position by Track

Table 110: Harassment by Track–Relationship with Satisfaction and Climate Ratings

Table 111: Gender Discrimination by Track-Relationship with Satisfaction and Climate

Ratings

Table 112: Professional Experience by Gender

Table 113: Household and Partner Employment Characteristics by Gender

(Percentages)

Table 114: Productivity* by Gender

Table 115: Indicators of Productivity by Gender (Percentages)

Table 116: Recognition by Gender (Percentages)

Table 117: Mean Scores of Career Satisfaction Item Ratings by Gender

Table 118: Influence over Educational Decisions & Unit Resources by Gender

Table 119: Effort and Satisfaction with Resources by Gender

Table 120a: Number of Items in Contract Negotiation by Gender

Table 120b: Contract Negotiations by Gender (Percentages)

Table 121: Teaching by Gender

Table 122a: Mentoring of Junior Faculty by Gender

Table 122b: Percent With No Mentoring in Each Area Junior Faculty by Gender

Table 123: Service by Gender

Table 124: Stereotyping by Gender

Table 125a: Discrimination by Gender (Percentages)

Table 125b: Gender Discrimination by Gender (Percentages)

Table 126: Sexual Harassment* by Gender (Percentages)

Table 127: Department Climate Scales* by Gender

Table 128: Institutional and Departmental Climate Ratings by Gender:

Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position

Table 129: Departmental Experiences Indicators by Gender:

Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position

Table 130: Personal and Position Indicators by Gender: Correlations with

Overall Satisfaction with Position

Table 131: Harassment by Gender–Relationship with Satisfaction and Climate Ratings

Table 132: Discrimination –Relationship with Satisfaction and Climate Ratings

Table 72: Professional History – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/engineers (N=135)		men scientists/engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Age	46.17^a	8.46	49.49^a	11.13	45.50	9.51
Time since highest degree*	3.49^a	1.60	4.29^a	2.24	3.06	1.90
Time since first UM appointment*	2.54^ab	1.51	3.29^a	2.16	2.10^b	1.57
	percentage		percentage		percentage
Hired in last ten years	56.6^ab		41.6^a		71.6^b
Joint appointment	20.3		17.7		27.0
Appointment in small college	31.0^a		13.9^a		26.0
Full professor rank	27.4^a		56.7^a		36.0
Associate professor rank	36.3^a		16.7^a		31.9
Assistant professor rank	36.4		26.7		32.1
*1=1995-2001; 2=1990-1994, 3=1985-1989; 4=1980-1984; 5=1975-1979; 6=1970-1974; 7=1965-1969; 8=1960-1964.
^a,^b Matching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤05.

Table 73: Household and Partner Employment Characteristics (Percentages) – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers		men scientists/ engineers		women social scientists
Household Composition:	(N=135)		(N=100)		(N=73)
Single (no partner nor children)	10.7	^a	3.2	^a	7.6
Children, no partner	5.8	^a	0.7	^a	3.8
Partner and children	67.2	^a	85.6	^a	62.0
Partner, no children	16.2		10.5		26.6
Partner Employment:	(N=110)		(N=94)		(N=64)
Partner works fulltime	87.3	^a	40.9	^a	80.3
If partner employed at UM (N=52), employed as faculty	78.1	^a	46.7	^a	67.0
Considered leaving UM to improve partner’s career	50.6	^a	32.3	^a	58.2
^aMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p<..05.

Table 74a: Career Satisfaction – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure track faculty (N=312)
	mean	sd
Highest Rated Items*
Sense of being valued as a mentor or advisor by students	4.40	0.95
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students	4.13	1.08
Sense of contributing to theoretical developments in my discipline	3.96	1.09
Opportunity to collaborate with other faculty	3.88	1.28
Middle Rated Items*
Ability to attract students to work with	3.54	1.35
Level of funding for research or creative efforts	3.75	1.20
Sense of being valued for my teaching by members of unit/dept	3.57	1.28
Level of intellectual stimulation in day-to-day contacts with faculty colleagues	3.52	1.28
Lowest Rated Items*
Amount of social interaction with members of unit/department	3.55	1.38
Sense of being valued for research, scholarship, or creativity by members of unit/department	3.52	1.35
Current salary in comparison with the salaries of UM colleagues	3.20	1.27
Balance between professional and personal life	3.18	1.28
*Scores on all items ranged from 1 to 5 (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied).

Table 74b: Career Satisfactions Scale and Item Ratings by Tenure Track Group – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=135)		men scientists/ engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Career satisfactions (total scale)	3.51	.75	3.74	.82	3.74	.64
Individual items:
Sense of being valued as a mentor or advisor by students	4.49	0.89	4.36	1.00	4.59	0.69
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students	4.13	1.09	4.10	1.09	4.31	1.00
Sense of contributing to theoretical developments in my discipline	3.84	1.10	3.97	1.11	4.13	0.94
Opportunity to collaborate with other faculty	3.77	1.32	3.92	1.27	3.77	1.29
Ability to attract students to work with	3.74	1.26	3.44	1.39	3.93	1.14
Level of funding for research or creative efforts	3.49	1.31	3.84	1.15	3.61	1.33
Sense of being valued for my teaching by members of unit/dept	3.35	1.34	3.61	1.28	3.64	1.16
Level of intellectual stimulation in day-to-day contacts with faculty colleagues	3.44	1.46	3.55	1.23	3.50	1.38
Amount of social interaction with members of unit/department	3.32	1.41	3.60	1.39	3.62	1.28
Sense of being valued for research, scholarship, or creativity by members of unit/department	3.18	1.43	3.59	1.32	3.55	1.36
Current salary in comparison with the salaries of UM colleagues	3.03	1.22	3.24	1.27	3.28	1.39
Balance between professional and personal life	2.86^a	1.35	3.29^a	1.25	3.01	1.35
*Scores on all items ranged from 1 to 5 (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied).
^aMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤.05.

Table 75: Productivity – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers		male scientists/ engineers		women social scientists
by Gender/Field Groups:	(N=135)		(N=100)		(N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Perception of Own Productivity	7.11	1.94	7.31	1.53	7.30	1.63
Perception of Department’s View of Own Productivity	5.91	2.32	6.55	1.86	6.02	2.01
	assistant professor		associate professor		full professor
by Rank:	(N=95)		(N=123)		(N=90)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Perception of Own Productivity	6.90^a	1.98	6.97	1.75	7.57^a	1.25
Perception of Department’s View of Own Productivity	6.18	2.01	6.07	1.86	6.68	1.98
*Scores on all items ranged from 1 to10 (1=much less productive; 10=much more productive).
^aMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05.

Table 76: Recognition – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers	male scientists/ engineers	women social scientists
by Gender/Field Groups:	(N=135)	(N=100)	(N=73)
	percentage	percentage	percentage
Nominated for teaching award*	23.6^a	39.0^a	35.4
Nominated for research award	26.5	31.5	38.4
Nominated for service award	13.1	12.1	20.2
Nominated for clinical award	1.6	3.3	2.7
Nominated for at least one award*	44.3^a	59.7^a	56.6
Dept failed to nominate for appropriate award	15.4	18.7	7.5
	assistant professor	associate professor	full professor
by Rank:	(N=95)	(N=123)	(N=90)
Nominated for teaching award	21.4^ab	44.1^a	40.0^b
Nominated for research award	24.2	24.3	37.3
Nominated for service award	1.3^ab	15.6^a	19.6^b
Nominated for clinical award	0.0	0.0	6.3
Nominated for at least one award	36.4^ab	61.4^a	64.8^b
Dept failed to nominate for appropriate award	7.8^a	15.7	22.9^a
* Difference not significant when controlling for rank ^a,bMatching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤..05.

Table 77: Influence Over Educational Matters and Resources – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=135)		men scientists/ engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Unit educational decisions (total scale)	2.62	0.95	2.70	0.92	2.83	0.84
Individual items:
Unit curriculum decisions	2.74	1.18	2.81	1.27	2.83	1.06
Selecting new graduate students or residents/fellows	3.23	1.37	3.43	1.29	3.45	1.18
Selecting new faculty members to be hired	2.81	1.18	2.97	1.21	3.09	0.92
Determining who gets tenure	2.06	1.20	2.28	1.32	2.41	1.43
Selecting the next unit head	2.07^a	1.14	2.04	1.09	2.39^a	1.19
Affecting the overall unit climate/culture	2.64	1.01	2.91	1.16	2.71	1.09
Unit resources (total scale)	2.31	0.92	2.34	0.94	2.50	0.85
Individual items:
Size of salary increases I receive	1.82	0.96	1.79	0.94	1.95	0.96
Obtaining money for travel to professional meetings	2.29^a	1.28	2.50	1.32	2.83^a	1.16
Securing the facilities or equipment I need for my research	2.86	1.14	2.98	1.12	3.01	0.94
Scores for all items range from 1 to 5 (1=no influence; 5=tremendous influence).
Note: Statistically significant effects on rank (assistant, associate, full) were found for salary, securing equipment, selecting new faculty members, and tenure decisions. Statistically significant effects for Hired in last 10 years (yes/no) were found for selecting new faculty, overall influence, and influence over curriculum decisions.
^aMatching symbols denote statistically significant difference, p≤.05.

Table 78: Efforts to Secure and Satisfaction with Resources – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=135)		men scientists/ engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Efforts to secure the following resources*:
office space	2.32^a	1.42	2.39	1.50	1.62^a	1.00
research space	3.34	1.34	3.42	1.44	3.00	1.23
computer equipment	2.77	1.24	2.40	1.05	2.50	0.84
lab equipment	3.20	1.29	3.45	1.21	2.73	0.91
service from vendors (repairs, supplies, upgrades)	2.73	1.03	2.92	1.03	2.68	0.94
Satisfaction with the following resources**:
office space	3.73^a	1.37	3.77	1.47	4.16^a	1.20
research space	3.29	1.43	3.22	1.53	3.31	1.29
computer equipment	3.54^a	1.30	3.78	1.22	3.96^a	1.07
lab equipment	3.52	1.32	3.80	1.24	3.72	1.03
service from vendors (repairs, supplies, upgrades)	3.40	1.14	3.31	1.01	3.55	1.04
* Scores on all items range from 1 to5 (1=no effort; 5=tremendous effort). ** Scores on all items range from 1 to 5 (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied).
^aMatching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤.05.

Table 79a: Frequency of Contract Negotiation and Renegotiation Items – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=65)		men scientists/ engineers (N=34)		women social scientists (N=46)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Initial Contract Negotiation (for those hired in last 10 yrs)
Number of items offered by UM	3.25	2.43	3.04	2.52	3.31	1.91
Number of items bargained for	2.75	2.58	2.90	2.97	2.51	2.00
Number of items promised in offer letter	2.54	2.61	3.22	3.05	2.58	2.20
Total number of items received	4.36	2.55	4.43	2.67	4.55	2.12
Contract Renegotiation	(N=109)		(N=72)		(N=58)
Number of items offered by UM	1.29^ab	1.59	1.75^a	2.10	2.21^b	2.16
Number of items bargained for	1.71	1.85	2.04	2.08	2.03	1.78
Number of items received by terms of award	0.96	1.57	1.09	1.61	0.83	1.31
Total number of items received	3.97^ab	3.47	4.88^a	3.99	5.07^b	3.82
^a,bMatching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤..05.

Table 79b: Contract Negotiation and Renegotiation Items – Weighted Analysis
	Initial Negotiation (for those hired within last 10 yrs):			Later Renegotiations:
	women scientists/ engineers (N=74)	men scientists/ enigneers (N=43)	women social scientists (N=50)	women scientists/ engineers (N=106)	men scientists/ engineers (N=74)	women social scientists (N=60)
Course release time
Offered by UM	22.1^a	22.1	42.3^a	8.3^a	18.0	33.4^a
Asked/bargained for	16.9	15.4	21.2	23.0	17.2	36.0
Lab space
Offered by UM	43.6^a	27.5	13.9^a	13.6	21.7	4.4
Asked/bargained for	40.1	31.8	26.5	27.9	25.8	15.1
Lab equipment
Offered by UM	22.8	27.5	20.0	7.1^a	17.1^a	6.8
Asked/bargained for	36.5	37.3	31.0	20.2	29.1	12.1
Renovation of lab space
Offered by UM	15.0^a	13.8	1.7^a	7.1^a	14.0	11.3^a
Asked/bargained for	14.1	15.3	6.1	15.7^a	20.3	2.9^a
Research assistant
Offered by UM	7.9	6.9	5.1	4.8	1.6	5.9
Asked/bargained for	23.6	13.8	11.2	16.5	17.9	21.8
Clerical/administrative support
Offered by UM	27.5	14.4	13.9	13.9	20.3	13.6
Asked/bargained for	7.9	8.2	1.7	13.1	19.4	11.2
Discretionary funds
Offered by UM	40.1	44.8	53.3	25.0	27.3	36.7
Asked/bargained for	41.6	45.5	37.7	24.7	23.0	33.0
Travel funding
Offered by UM	30.6	19.9	25.1	17.9^a	30.4	35.4^a
Asked/bargained for	16.9	21.9	27.2	18.4	21.3	22.4
Summer salary
Offered by UM	25.2^a	26.2	53.9^a	9.1^a	9.4	25.7^a
Asked/bargained for	20.9	11.0	23.8	7.7^a	10.1	21.3^a
Special bonus
Offered by UM	1.2	2.7	1.7	18.8	10.8	17.1
Asked/bargained for	3.1	5.5	4.2	9.7	3.1	2.9
Special timing of tenure clock
Offered by UM	6.7	4.2	10.5	10.0	4.6	9.2
Asked/bargained for	7.9	13.7	3.4	15.0	7.8	8.8
Moving expenses
Offered by UM	57.0	60.0	68.4	17.6	19.5	27.2
Asked/bargained for	23.3	27.5	27.8	5.1	11.6	9.7
Housing subsidy
Offered by UM	3.9^a	0.8^a	0.0	1.6	1.1	0.0
Asked/bargained for	1.2	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Child care
Offered by UM	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Asked/bargained for	1.2	1.7	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0
Partner/Spouse position
Offered by UM	3.6^a	1.4	13.3^a	1.7^ab	10.1^a	1.3^b
Asked/bargained for	10.7^a	9.7	25.7^a	5.1	2.4	12.1

^{a ,b}Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤..05.

Table 80: Teaching – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=135)		men scientists/ engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Typical yearly teaching load in department
Number of undergraduate courses	1.22^a	1.18	1.17	1.13	1.94^a	0.85
Number of graduate courses	1.45^a	1.15	1.32	0.95	1.70^a	0.73
Number new courses developed in past 5 years	1.74^a	1.75	1.48	2.17	3.67^a	2.18
Number of courses released from teaching in past five years	1.57^a	2.79	1.46	2.45	3.92^a	4.12
Teaching load winter and fall semesters 2001
Number of undergraduate courses	1.07^a	2.04	0.88	1.32	1.61^a	1.99
Number of graduate courses	0.95	1.38	1.00	1.28	1.04	1.24
Number of non-lab courses	1.48^a	1.65	1.62	1.65	1.98^a	1.62
Number of lab courses	0.55^a	1.31	0.24^a	0.63	0.67	1.75
Number of undergraduate students	43.37	71.12	70.28	112.76	64.81	111.20
Number of graduate students	44.29	84.61	41.46	75.24	20.92	23.74
Official advising
Number of undergraduates	2.28	4.63	1.53	4.42	1.47	3.04
Number of graduate students (masters, PhD, medical)	3.18^a	3.26	3.12	3.54	6.72^a	5.56
Number of postdocs or residents/fellows	1.44^a	2.10	1.53	2.90	0.16^a	0.51
Number of junior faculty	0.35^a	0.80	0.12^a	0.39	0.60	1.47
^a Matching symbols denote statistically significant difference, p≤..05.

Table 81: Service – Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=135)		men scientists/ engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
How many committees do you serve on in a typical year?	3.8^a	2.4	3.2	2.6	3.3^a	1.2
How many committees do you chair in a typical year?	0.8	0.9	0.8	0.9	0.7	0.7
How important to you is having a department or college leadership position?*	3.2	1.3	2.8	1.4	2.9	1.3
*Rated on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=not important; 5=very important).
^aMatching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤..05.

Table 82a: Mentoring - Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=135)		men scientists/ engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Number of areas of no mentoring from anyone	3.17^ab	2.53	1.06^a	1.82	1.29^b	1.46
Number of mentors in same UM unit/department	2.85	3.58	5.25	4.24	5.52	4.06
Number of male mentors at UM	1.78	2.45	3.70	3.05	2.21	2.21
^a,b Matching symbols denote statistically significant difference, p≤..05.

Table 82b: Percent With No Mentoring in Each Area, for Assistant Professors Only-- Weighted Analysis
Percent who received no mentoring from anyone in- or outside UM in each of the following areas:	women scientists/ engineers		men scientists/ engineers		women social scientists
Assistant Professors only	(N=46)		(N=28)		(N=21)
role model		38		17		37
networking		56^a		24^a		53
advancement		38		24		26
publishing		48^a		22^a		33
department politics		57		38		39
resources		54		36		47
advocacy		51		32		41
balancing work/family		72		67		70
^aMatching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤..05.

Table 83a: Stereotyping, Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Indicators-- Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=117)		men scientist/ engineers (N=80)		women social scientists (N=65)
Stereotyping*	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Gender stereotyping	1.91^ab	0.74	1.47^a	0.60	1.67^b	0.68
Ethnic/religious stereotyping	1.51	0.66	1.35	0.64	1.36	0.52
Discrimination at UM in past 5 years	percentage		percentage		percentage
Gender	41.7^a		3.5^a		35.1
Race/ethnicity**	4.3		6.5		7.9
Sexual orientation	2.4^a		0.0^a		1.2
Physical disability	0.0		0.0		0.0
Religious affiliation	0.0		0.0		1.2
Sexual harassment at UM in past 5 years	percentage		percentage		percentage
Individuals reporting sexual harassment	18.9^ab		5.2^a		12.1^b
Individuals reporting others reported sexual harassment	37.1^ab		19.0^a		27.1^b
*Scores range from 1(low) to 5 (high) on all variables. **Note that the rate of faculty of color is different by group (women scientists 16%; men scientists 32%; women social scientists 21%).
^a,bMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05.

Table 83b: Gender Discrimination (Percentages) – Weighted Analysis
	women scientist/ engineers (N=115)		men scientists/ engineers (N=81)	women social scientists (N=603)
Experienced gender discrimination at UM within past 5 years in:
Hiring		6.7^a	1.4	2.2^a
Promotion		15.0^a	6.9^a	3.3
Salary		34.0^a	.7^a	35.7
Space/equipment, other resources		19.0^a	1.4^a	10.9
Access to administrative staff		11.1^a	10.9^a	3.0
Graduate student or resident/fellow assignments		5.9^a	.7^a	3.0
^aMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05

Table 84: Departmental Climate Scales* - Weighted Analysis
	women scientists/ engineers (N=135)		men scientists/ engineers (N=100)		women social scientists (N=73)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Positive climate	3.13^a	0.98	3.53^a	0.89	3.45	0.97
Tolerant climate	3.50^ab	0.86	3.86^a	0.72	3.83^b	0.94
Gender egalitarian atmosphere	3.12^ab	0.90	3.88^a	0.74	3.63^b	0.88
Scholarly isolation	2.77	0.52	2.64	0.52	2.79	0.61
Felt surveillance	2.96^a	1.04	2.41^a	0.92	2.61	0.94
Tokenism	2.84^ab	1.28	1.73^a	1.13	2.37^b	1.20
Department chair as fair	3.25^ab	1.14	3.65^a	0.97	3.75^b	1.05
Department chair creates positive environment	3.14^ab	1.15	3.51^a	1.04	3.78^b	1.14
Dept chair committed to ethnic/racial diversity	3.47^a	1.24	3.81	1.02	4.39^a	1.05
*Scores range from 1(low) to 5 (high) on all items that make up the scales.
^a,bMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤.05.

Table 85: Institutional and Departmental Climate Ratings: Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position - Weighted Analysis
		Overall Satisfaction with UM Position
		tenure track (N=308)				women scientists/engineers (N=135)
Institutional Factors:
Gender stereotyping				-0.12*				-0.29**
Ethnic/religious stereotyping				-0.09				-0.17
Gender discrimination				-0.25***				-0.16
Unwanted sexual attention				-0.20***				-0.20*
Departmental Factors:
Positive climate				0.55***				0.57***
Tolerant climate				0.28***				0.46***
Gender egalitarian atmosphere				0.27***				0.42***
Scholarly isolation				-0.11				-0.15
Felt surveillance				-0.34***				-0.49***
Race/gender tokenism				-0.41***				-0.28**
Rating of department chair as fair				0.44***				0.52***
Rating of department chair as able to create positive environment				0.45***				0.51***
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Note: Correlation coefficients indicate the magnitude and direction of the relationship. Thus, the correlation -.22 between gender stereotyping and overall satisfaction indicates that gender stereotyping is related to low satisfaction at a modest level. In contrast, the correlation .59 between positive climate and satisfaction indicates that positive climate is related to high satisfaction at a substantial level.
Table 86: Departmental Experiences Indicators: Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position - Weighted Analysis
	Overall Satisfaction with UM Position
	tenure track (N=308)				women scientists/engineers (N=135)
Significant Factors for Women Scientists/Engineers:
Career satisfactions	.73		***		.73		***
Influence on decisions	.22		*		.43		***
Effort to obtain resources	.43		***		-.43		***
Satisfaction with resources	.16				.44		***
N areas of non-mentoring	0.43		***		-0.34		***
N mentors in same department	0.28		**		0.28		**
N male mentors in same dept	0.45		***		0.22		*
Productivity—self view	-0.34		***		0.13
Productivity—department view	-0.41		***		0.44		***
Non-significant Factors for Women Scientists/Engineers:
Committee service	-0.04				-0.06
Committee chair	-0.03				-0.01
Failure to nominate for award	-0.10				-0.09
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table 87: Personal and Position Indicators and Household Characteristics: Correlations with Overall Satisfaction with Position - Weighted Analysis
	Overall Satisfaction with UM Position
	tenure track (N=308)		women scientists/engineers (N=135)
Personal & Position Indicators:
Age	0.10		-0.03
Ethnicity	-0.07		-0.10
Years at UM	0.00		0.05
Years since Ph.D.	0.16	**	0.06
Joint appointment	0.09		-0.04
Rank	0.07		0.06
Small college	-0.06		-0.11
Household Characteristics:
Single, no children	-0.01		-0.23	*
Partner and children	0.01		0.02
Partner employed fulltime	-0.24	***	0.04
Partner employed as faculty	-0.16		0.11
*p<.05, **p<.01

Table 88: Harassment–Relationship with Satisfaction & Climate Ratings – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure Faculty			Women Scientists/Engineers
	experienced harassment (N=39)	experienced no harassment (N=264)		experienced harassment (N=26)	experienced no harassment (N=106)
	mean (sd)	mean (sd)	sig.	mean (sd)	mean (sd)	sig.
Satisfaction with position	3.01 (1.22)	3.77 (0.99)	**	3.08 (1.17)	3.89 ( .89)	*
Climate variables:
Gender stereotyping	2.38 (0.85)	1.49 (0.60)	***	2.63 (0.68)	1.88 (0.64)	***
Positive climate	3.13 (0.88)	3.51 (0.91)	*	3.11 (0.85)	3.49 (0.89)
Tolerant climate	3.33 (1.06)	3.88 (0.72)	*	3.25 (0.96)	3.73 (0.78)	*
Gender egalitarian atmosphere	3.16 (1.12)	3.79 (0.79)	*	2.99 (1.01)	3.59 (0.80)	***
Felt surveillance	2.72 (1.01)	2.44 (0.97)		2.81 (0.92)	2.69 (0.90)
Tokenism	2.55 (1.37)	1.87 (1.19)	*	3.00 (1.20)	2.77 (1.11)
Department chair as fair	3.51 (1.15)	3.61 (0.99)		3.47 (1.15)	3.40 (0.98)
Department chair creates positive environment	3.30 (1.11)	3.50 (1.05)		3.19 (1.15)	3.46 (0.98)	*
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table 89: Discrimination –Relationship with Satisfaction & Climate Ratings – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure Faculty			Women Scientists/Engineers
	experienced discimination (N=86)	experienced no discrimination (N=222)		experienced discrimination (N=56)	experienced no discrimination (N=79)
	mean (sd)	mean (sd)	sig	mean (sd)	mean (sd)	sig.
Satisfaction with position	2.97(1.26)	3.66 (1.10)	***	3.07 (1.12)	3.89 (0.86)
Climate variables:
Gender stereotyping	1.91 (0.77)	1.41 (0.64)	***	2.06 (0.73)	1.94 (0.67)	*
Positive climate	3.03 (1.02)	3.49 (0.87)	**	3.05 (1.00)	3.52 (0.85)
Tolerant climate	3.39 (0.85)	3.90 (0.75)	**	3.36 (0.80)	3.74 (0.81)	**
Gender egalitarian atmosphere	2.91 (0.95)	3.88 (0.76)	***	2.75 (0.80)	3.67 (0.77)	***
Felt surveillance	3.36 (1.06)	2.35 (0.93)	***	3.16 (1.02)	2.60 (0.84)	**
Tokenism	3.03 (1.21)	1.74 (1.12)	***	3.04 (1.14)	2.71 (1.12)
Department chair as fair	3.24 (1.12)	3.68 (0.96)		3.21 (1.06)	3.48 (0.98)
Department chair creates positive environment	3.21 (1.11)	3.52 (1.04)		3.21 (1.05)	3.48 (0.99)
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Table 90: Response Rates by Track and Gender (Percentages)
	men scientists/ engineers	women scientists/ engineers	women social scientists	total
Tenure	30	52	47	41
Research	22	48		32
Clinical	23	48		34
Total	26	50	47

Table 91: Professional History by Track – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure (N=235)		Research (N=95)		Clinical (N=117)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Age	48.87^a	10.72	45.53^a	9.37	47.45	8.67
Time since highest degree	4.14^a	2.15	3.10^ab	1.93	4.18^b	1.88
Time since first UM appointment	3.15^a	2.07	2.48^a	1.85	2.31	1.54
	percentages		percentages		percentages
Faculty of color	15.51^a		17.04^b		4.81^ab
Hired in last ten years	44.42^a		59.88		63.98^a
Joint appointment	18.17^a		11.10		8.13^a
Small college	17.12		24.12^a		8.91 ^a
Full professor/ research scientist (includes sr. res. scientist)	51.16^ab		21.85^a		10.09^b
Assoc. professor/ assoc. res scientist (includes sr. assoc. res. scientist.)	20.35^ab		6.57^ac		38.71^bc
Asst. prof./ asst. research scientist (includes res. invest.)	28.49^ab		71.58^ac		51.20^bc
*1=1995-2001; 2=1990-1994, 3=1985-1989; 4=1980-1984; 5=1975-1979; 6=1970-1974; 7=1965-1969; 8=1960-1964. ^a,b,cMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05

Table 92: Household & Partner Employment Characteristics by Track (Percentages) Weighted Analysis
	Tenure		Research		Clinical
Household Composition:	(N=235)		(N=95)		(N=116)
Single (no partner nor children)		5		4		5
Children, no partner		2		4		2
Partner and children		82		83		81
Partner, no children		12		9		12
Partner Employment:	(N=204)		(N=84)		(N=101)
Partner works fulltime		49		64		37
Partner employed at UM		54		31^a		58^a
If partner employed at UM, employed as faculty		54		31		58
Considered leaving UM to improve partner’s career		35		49^a		25^a
^aMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05

Table 93: Indicators of Productivity by Track (Percentages) – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure		Research		Clinical
	(N=235)		(N=95)		(N=116)
Number of external grant proposals (PI or co-PI)		56^a		79^b		47^ab
Total dollar amount of external grants (PI or co-PI)		32^ab		13^ac		50^bc
Number of external fellowships		97		98		98
Number of articles published in refereed academic or professional journals		98^a		96		86^a
Number of monographs written		11		4		13
Number of books edited		5		5		12
Number of book chapters		15		13		27
Number of dissertations chaired		29^a		27^b		1^ab
Number of presentations at national/international conferences		68		58		58
Number of patents		5		12		10
^a,b,cMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05

Table 94: Productivity* by Track – Weighted Analysis
by Track	Tenure (N=235)		Research (N=95)		Clinical (N=116)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Perception of own productivity	7.27^a	1.62	6.97^b	1.87	5.61^ab	2.26
Perception of department’s view of own productivity	6.42	1.96	6.28	1.88	5.83	2.27
by Rank	Assistant (N=235)		Associate (N=142)		Full (N=148)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Perception of own productivity	6.12^ab	2.27	6.69^ac	1.84	7.61^bc	1.27
Perception of department’s view of own productivity	5.74^a	2.00	6.16^b	1.96	6.82^ab	1.98
*Scores on all items ranged from 1 to10 (1=much less productive; 10=much more productive, compared to researchers in your area and at your rank nationwide).
^a,b,cMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05.

Table 95: Recognition by Track (Percentages) – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure		Research		Clinical
	(N=235)		(N=95)		(N=116)
Nominated for teaching award		36^a		3^ab		30^b
Nominated for research award		31^a		19^b		5^ab
Nominated for clinical award		3^a		0^b		12^ab
Nominated for service award		12		3		12
Nominated for at least one award		57^ab		21^a		36^b
Dept failed to nominate for appropriate award		18^a		6		5^a
^a,b,Matching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05

Table 96a: Career Satisfaction Ratings by Track – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure (N=235)		Research (N=95)		Clinical (N=116)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Scale:
Satisfaction with unit/department	3.69	0.81	3.55	0.61	3.62	0.82
Individual items:
Sense of being valued as a mentor or advisor by students	4.38	0.98	4.30	1.04	4.19	0.95
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students	4.11	1.08	4.30	1.05	4.07	1.05
Sense of contributing to theoretical developments in my discipline	3.94^a	1.11	3.93^b	0.92	3.50^ab	1.22
Opportunity to collaborate with other faculty	3.89	1.28	4.12	1.07	3.93	1.13
Ability to attract students to work with	3.50^a	1.37	3.24^b	1.30	3.97^ab	0.90
Level of funding for research or creative efforts	3.77^a	1.19	3.72^b	1.15	3.11^ab	1.30
Sense of being valued for my teaching by members of unit/dept	3.56^a	1.29	2.66^ab	1.35	3.52^b	1.28
Level of intellectual stimulation in day-to-day contacts with faculty colleagues	3.52	1.27	3.72	1.16	3.93	1.22
Amount of social interaction with members of unit/department	3.54	1.39	3.27	1.09	3.72	1.20
Sense of being valued for research, scholarship, or creativity by members of unit/department	3.51	1.35	3.53	1.26	3.16	1.32
Current salary in comparison with the salaries of UM colleagues	3.20	1.26	3.25	1.28	3.45	1.20
Balance between professional and personal life	3.20	1.27	3.33	1.22	3.33	1.24
^a,bMatching symbols identify groups that differ significantly from each other, p≤..05

Table 96b: Career Satisfaction Item Ratings, Ranked by Ratings -Weighted Analysis
	science/engineering faculty across tracks (N=446)
	mean	sd
Scale:
Satisfaction with unit/department	3.64	0.78
Highest Rated Items*
Sense of being valued as a mentor or advisor by students	4.32	0.98
Sense of being valued as a teacher by students	4.12	1.07
Opportunity to collaborate with other faculty	3.95	1.20
Sense of contributing to theoretical developments in my discipline	3.83	1.11
Middle Rated Items*
Ability to attract students to work with	3.56	1.28
Level of intellectual stimulation in day-to-day contacts with faculty colleagues	3.68	1.25
Amount of social interaction with members of unit/department	3.53	1.29
Level of funding for research or creative efforts	3.60	1.24
Lowest Rated Items*
Sense of being valued for my teaching by members of unit/dept	3.47	1.31
Sense of being valued for research, scholarship, or creativity by members of unit/department	3.43	1.33
Current salary in comparison with the salaries of UM colleagues	3.28	1.25
Balance between professional and personal life	3.26	1.25
*Scores on all items ranged from 1 to 5 (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied)

Table 97a: Influence over Educational Decisions and Unit Resources by Track - Weighted Analysis
	Tenure (N=235)		Research (N=95)		Clinical (N=116)
Scales:	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Unit educational matters	2.68^ab	0.92	1.76^ac	0.69	2.21^bc	0.88
Unit resources (salary, money for travel, facilities/equipment)	2.33^a	0.93	2.63^ab	0.77	2.11^b	0.84
Individual items:
Unit curriculum decisions	2.80^a	1.25	1.38^ab	0.73	2.75^b	1.12
Size of salary increases I receive	1.80	0.94	1.80	0.90	1.82	0.79
Obtaining money for travel to professional meetings	2.46^a	1.31	3.11^ab	1.42	2.29^b	1.15
Securing the facilities or equipment I need for my research	2.95	1.12	3.09^a	0.88	2.61^a	1.02
Selecting new graduate students or residents/fellows	3.39^a	1.30	2.65^a	1.21	3.01	1.27
Selecting new faculty members to be hired	2.93^ab	1.20	1.84^ac	0.84	2.42^bc	1.20
Determining who gets tenure	2.24^ab	1.29	1.24^a	0.62	1.47^b	0.87
Selecting the next unit head	2.05^ab	1.10	1.53^a	0.80	1.46^b	0.81
Affecting the overall unit climate/culture	2.86^a	1.14	2.39^a	0.96	2.76	1.07
Scores for all items range from 1 to 5 (1=no influence; 5=tremendous influence).
Note: Statistically significant effects on rank (junior, middle, senior) were found for curriculum decisions, securing equipment, selecting new graduate students, selecting new unit head and tenure decisions. Statistically significant effects on hired in last 10 years (yes/no) were found for influence over educational matters scale, selecting new unit head, and influence over curriculum decisions.
^a,b,cMatching symbols denote statistically significant difference, p≤..05.

Table 97b: Influence over Educational Decisions & Unit Resources by Rank - Weighted Analysis
	Asst level (N=236)		Assoc level (N=142)		Full level (N=149)
Scales:	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Unit educational matters	1.92^ab	0.78	2.56^ac	0.93	2.86^bc	0.95
Unit resources (salary, money for travel, facilities/equipment)	2.29	0.92	2.34	0.81	2.49	0.91
Individual items:
Unit curriculum decisions	2.06^ab	1.07	2.93^a	1.30	2.86^b	1.23
Size of salary increases I receive	1.75	0.86	1.98	0.84	1.83	1.00
Obtaining money for travel to professional meetings	2.63	1.35	2.45	1.21	2.69	1.27
Securing the facilities or equipment I need for my research	2.81^a	1.09	2.85	0.93	3.19^a	1.07
Selecting new graduate students or residents/fellows	2.83^a	1.28	3.18	1.39	3.55^a	1.16
Selecting new faculty members to be hired	2.12^ab	1.01	2.79^a	1.15	3.09^b	1.28
Determining who gets tenure	1.19^ab	0.61	2.03^ac	1.18	2.65^bc	1.34
Selecting the next unit head	1.50^ab	0.88	1.78^ac	0.99	2.28^bc	1.14
Affecting the overall unit climate/culture	2.52^ab	1.00	2.84^a	1.11	2.96^b	1.12
Scores for all items range from 1 to 5 (1=no influence; 5=tremendous influence).
^a,b,cMatching symbols denote statistically significant difference, p≤..05.

Table 98: Effort and Satisfaction with Resources by Track – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure (N=235)		Research (N=95)		Clinical (N=116)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Scales:
Mean effort	2.79	0.99	2.72	0.87	2.69	1.02
Mean satisfaction	3.57^a	1.08	3.83^a	0.90	3.75	0.98
Effort to secure the following resources:*
office space	2.38	1.48	2.70	1.41	2.39	1.54
research space	3.41^a	1.41	2.95^a	1.35	3.18	1.35
computer equipment	2.47	1.09	2.56	0.99	2.65	1.25
lab equipment	3.39^a	1.22	2.62^a	1.12	2.96	1.32
service from vendors (repairs, supplies, upgrades)	2.88	1.03	2.57	0.92	2.86	1.09
Satisfaction with the following resources:**
office space	3.76	1.45	3.83	1.37	3.89	1.32
research space	3.23	1.51	3.48	1.36	3.34	1.34
computer equipment	3.74^a	1.23	4.33^ab	0.88	4.02^b	1.08
lab equipment	3.74	1.26	3.86	1.09	3.91	0.87
service from vendors (repairs, supplies, upgrades)	3.33^a	1.04	4.04^ab	1.03	3.52^b	1.15
* Scores on all items range from 1 to5 (1=no effort; 5=tremendous effort). ** Scores on all items range from 1 to 5 (1=very dissatisfied; 5=very satisfied).
^a,bMatching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤.05.

Table 99a: Number of Items in Contract Negotiation by Track – Weighted Analysis
	Tenure (N=117)		Research (N=66)		Clinical (N=75)
	mean	sd	mean	sd	mean	sd
Initial contract negotiation (if hired in last 10 yrs):
Number of items offered by UM	2.79^ab	2.41	0.59^ac	1.36	1.86^bc	1.85
Number of items bargained for	2.58^ab	2.74	0.36^a	1.06	0.73^b	1.29
Number of items promised in offer letter	2.79^ab	2.81	0.26^ac	0.92	0.91^bc	1.58
Total number of items received	4.07^ab	2.61	0.77^ac	1.56	1.83^bc	1.92
Contract renegotiation:	(N=205)		(N=57)		(N=76)
Number of items offered by UM	1.64^a	2.00	0.92^a	1.52	1.31	1.43
Number of items bargained for	1.81^ab	1.99	0.81^a	1.22	0.96^b	1.41
Number of items received by terms of award	1.00^a	1.54	0.84	1.65	0.28^a	0.83
Total number of items received	4.44^ab	3.83	2.57^a	2.48	2.54^b	2.38
^a,b,cMatching symbols denote statistically significant differences, p≤..05.

Table 99b: Contract Negotiations by Track (Percentages) – Weighted Analysis
	Initial Negotiation (for those hired within last 10 years):			Later Renegotiations:
	Tenure (N=116)	Research (N=54)	Clinical (N=72)	Tenure (N=1805)	Research (N=437)	Clinical (N=60)
Course release time
Offered by UM	23.65^ab	3.15^a	5.18^b	16.06^a	3.47^a	9.34
Asked/bargained for	15.42^a	5.08^a	8.96	18.32^a	0.71^ab	11.87^b
Lab equipment
Offered by UM	27.91^a	10.93	10.16^a	15.12^a	8.75^b	1.27^ab
Asked/bargained for	38.4^ab	5.26^a	8.21^b	27.32^a	18.87^b	2.89^ab
Lab space
Offered by UM	32.76^ab	11.57^a	7.8^b	20.14^a	14.02	5.12^a
Asked/bargained for	35.14^ab	5.66^a	7.54^b	26.19^a	15.03	8.55^a
Renovation of lab space
Offered by UM	15.86^ab	1.94^a	1.34^b	12.64	6.44	5.12
Asked/bargained for	16.72^ab	2.11^a	3.44^b	19.35^a	6.44	4.52^a
Research assistant
Offered by UM	6.99	2.59	7.39	2.19	3.31	3.56
Asked/bargained for	15.82^a	2.50^a	6.05	17.62^a	0.71^ab	9.82^b
Clerical/administrative support
Offered by UM	17.17^a	3.64^ab	31.08^b	19.01	19.40	16.56
Asked/bargained for	7.97	3.15	5.12	18.14	15.45	18.60
Discretionary funds
Offered by UM	44.84^a	4.29^ab	32.56^b	26.81	29.96	30.42
Asked/bargained for	45.71^ab	7.54^a	17.74^b	23.29^a	8.66^a	19.87
Travel funding
Offered by UM	21.99^a	6.79^ab	38.67^b	27.96	20.35	44.53
Asked/bargained for	20.31^a	7.93	5.33^a	20.71	20.45	16.57
Special bonus
Offered by UM	2.32	0.65	0.67	12.39	5.99	20.49
Asked/bargained for	4.82	1.06	3.44	4.38^a	12.70	17.04^a
Summer salary
Offered by UM	25.45^ab	6.72^ac	1.08^bc	9.31^a	0.71^a	4.04
Asked/bargained for	13.06^ab	2.76^ac	6.77^bc	9.63^a	1.88^a	3.56
Special timing of tenure clock
Offered by UM	4.67	1.08	2.57	5.69^a	0.71^a	3.69
Asked/bargained for	12.06^a	5.73	0.00	9.22^a	1.57	6.16^a
Moving expenses