2016;

Into the light: Diffusing ccontroversy and increasing transparency in the faculty salary equity study process.

M B Bailey, C E Marchetti

UIID-AD: 4238

Abstract

Women are underrepresented in most science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) disciplines within academe and the workforce. In response, the National Science Foundation launched the ADVANCE grant program in the early 2000's to fund efforts which increase the representation of women STEM faculty and academic leaders. Many of the grants funded to date support large-scale comprehensive institutional transformation (IT) projects. In 2012, a large private technical university received an NSF ADVANCE IT grant and set out to strategically launch several initiatives aimed at increasing the representation and advancement of women STEM faculty by removing barriers to resources that support career success and by creating new interventions and resources (NSF ADVANCE 1209115). This paper reports on one of the initiatives within the overall institutional transformation plan which focuses on a salary gender equity study for pre-tenured and tenured faculty, conducted in a manner in which stakeholders would ideally have a high-level of confidence in its results. A cross-university Resource Allocation Committee (RAC) was created, comprised of administrators and faculty with expertise in statistical analysis, faculty hiring and evaluation processes, institutional data, and gender equity considerations. By providing an inclusive framework for faculty and administrators in the form of a collaborative committee, the grant team aims to increase transparency in the salary equity study process and promote internal dissemination of the methodology used and results observed. This approach has the potential to positively impact faculty perceptions of distributive justice as well as those of procedural justice. Formation of such a committee is critical to its success: all stakeholders are represented, the group is sized and comprised to minimize risk and maximize transparency, and leaders promote discussion and consensus. This paper demonstrates how the committee framework was able to bridge differences in perspective, address concerns, and serve as a model for sensitive work within the university. Related occurrences of institutional transparency, concurrent with the work of the RAC, will also be discussed. © American Society for Engineering Education, 2016.

Publication Types

• Conference Proceedings