Of
f
i
c
eofEqualOppor
t
uni
t
yandDi
ver
s
i
t
y
202J
es
s
upHal
l
3
1
9.
3
3
5.
07
05(
voi
c
e)
3
1
9.
3
3
5.
0697(
t
ex
t
)
THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA’S DIVERSITY CLIMATE:
RESULTS OF THE FALL 2005 FACULTY SURVEY
The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
Authors (Alphabetic Order)
Jennifer Modestou
Robin Paetzold
Dorothy Persson
Jill Robinson
Dorothy Simpson-Taylor
Carlette Washington-Hoagland
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals contributed their talents and time to this project. First, we thank
Charlotte Westerhaus, former director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity,
for initiating the campus-wide survey effort and providing valuable leadership during the
project’s first year. The project would not have been possible without the support of
former University of Iowa President David Skorton, who convened the project committee
and facilitated the project in numerous ways.
We are grateful for the thoughtful advice and feedback on drafts of the survey instrument
and/or the report from fellow members of the Diversity Campus Climate Survey
Advisory Committee (in alphabetic order):
• Susan Buckley, Vice President for Human Resources
• Marcella David, Special Assistant to the President for Equal Opportunity and
Diversity and Associate Provost
• Madgetta Dungy, former Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development,
College of Medicine
• Phillip Jones, former Vice President for Student Services and Dean of Students
• John Keller, Dean, Graduate College
• Philip Kutzko, Professor of Mathematics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
• Diana Leventry, Senior Associate Director, Human Resources
• Jennifer Richman, former Coordinator – Campus Programs and Student
Activities, Student Services
• Victor Rodgers, former Professor, Chemical and Biochemical Engineering,
College of Engineering
• Charlotte Westerhaus, former Assistant to the President and Director, Office of
Equal Opportunity and Diversity
We are indebted to Timothy Ansley, Associate Professor in the Department of
Psychological and Quantitative Foundations in the College of Education, for generous
consultation on survey development and statistical analyses. In the Office of Equal
Opportunity and Diversity, Cristina Cardenas provided valuable production support. We
are appreciative of Marcella David for providing the photograph for our cover and Kim
Carter for the cover design.
Last but certainly not least, we thank the members of The University of Iowa faculty who
shared their experiences with us by pre-testing the survey instrument and/or completing
the survey.
THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA’S DIVERSITY CLIMATE:
RESULTS OF THE FALL 2005 FACULTY SURVEY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................v
I.
Background ..................................................................................................................1
A. Diversity at The University of Iowa ....................................................................1
B. The Diversity Campus Climate Surveys ..............................................................2
II.
Methodology ................................................................................................................5
A. Development of the Survey Instrument ...............................................................5
B. Study Population and Respondents ......................................................................5
C. Confidentiality .....................................................................................................6
D. Survey Distribution ..............................................................................................6
III. Survey Findings ...........................................................................................................9
A. Survey Themes.....................................................................................................9
B. Respondent Characteristics ..................................................................................9
C. Data Analysis and Presentation..........................................................................11
D. Survey Area 1a: Perceptions of Access, Equity, and Inclusion ........................13
E. Survey Area 1b: Perceptions of Institutional Commitment to Diversity ..........27
F. Survey Area 2a: Quality of Experience in Living, Learning, and Working
Environments ................................................................................................33
G. Survey Area 2b: Levels of Use and Engagement in a Variety of Activities,
Offices, and Resources.......................................................................................41
H. Survey Area 2c: Level of Faculty Participation in Diversity-Related Efforts ..45
I. Survey Area 3a: Level of Exposure to Diversity Courses/Programs and to
Diverse Faculty, Staff, and Students ..................................................................49
J. Survey Area 3b: How Much and What Faculty Have Learned
About Diversity ................................................................................................55
K. Additional Qualitative Analyses ........................................................................57
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations ..........................................................................61
A. Summary of Findings .........................................................................................61
B. Recommendations ..............................................................................................67
References ..........................................................................................................................71
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ......................................................................................73
Appendix B: E-mail Correspondence to Study Population .............................................82
Appendix C: Overall Frequencies of Responses to Survey Items...................................85
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Gender and Racial/Ethnic Composition of Study Population and Respondent
Group ...........................................................................................................................7
Table 2:
Survey Respondents’ Demographic Profile .....................................................10
Table 3:
Subgroups Used in Comparative Analyses ......................................................12
Tables 4a and 4b: Sense of Connection with the Campus Community, Colleagues’
Attitudes, and Socializing with Colleagues (Overall and Comparisons by
Subgroups) ........................................................................................................... 14-15
Figure 1: Statistically Significant Differences for Question 21c, “Most of My
Colleagues Are Supportive of the University’s Affirmative Action Policy”.............16
Figure 2: Overall Responses to Question 20, “Overall, Do You Feel as Though You
Belong at The University of Iowa?” ..........................................................................16
Figure 3: Overall Responses to Question 16, Perception of Diversity of Backgrounds
and Race/Ethnicity at The University of Iowa ...........................................................17
Tables 5a and 5b: Sense of Belonging and Perception of Diversity of Backgrounds at the
University of Iowa (Overall and Comparisons by Subgroups) ............................ 18-19
Tables 6a and 6b: Perception of Racial/Ethnic Diversity at The University of Iowa
(Overall and Comparisons by Subgroups) ........................................................... 20-21
Tables 7a and 7b: Attendance at Events Where Various Groups May Not Feel
Welcome .............................................................................................................. 22-23
Figure 4: Overall Responses to Question 24, “Have You Ever Attended University of
Iowa-Affiliated Events Where You Believe the Following Groups Would Not Feel
Welcome?” .................................................................................................................25
Figure 5: Overall Responses to Question 21c, “The University Provides an Environment
for the Free and Open Expression of Ideas, Opinions, and Beliefs” .........................27
Tables 8a and 8b: Perceptions of Institutional Commitment to Diversity (Overall and
Comparisons by Subgroups) ................................................................................ 28-29
Figure 6: Overall Responses to Question 33h, “The University President and Top
Administrators are Active Leaders in Promoting Diversity on Campus” ..................30
Figure 7: Overall Responses to Question 35, “Rate the University’s Efforts, During the
Last Five Years, in the Following Areas” ..................................................................31
Figure 8: Overall Responses to Question 18, “Have Your Interactions at The University
of Iowa with Persons from a Variety of Backgrounds and Racial/Ethnic Groups
Enriched Your Teaching?”.........................................................................................33
Tables 9a and 9b: Interactions at The University of Iowa and Overall Satisfaction with
Faculty Experience (Overall and Comparisons by Subgroups) ........................... 34-35
Figure 9: Overall Responses to Question 34, “During the Last Five Years, How
Satisfied Have You Been with Your Overall Faculty Experiences at The University
of Iowa?” ....................................................................................................................36
ii
Figure 10: Overall Responses to Question 33, “How Did This Colleague Have a Positive
Impact on Your Professional Development?” ...........................................................37
Tables 10a and 10b: Characteristics of Colleagues Who Have Had a Positive Impact
(Overall and Comparisons by Subgroups) ........................................................... 38-39
Figure 11: Overall Responses to Question 15, Frequency of Participation in Organized
University Activities ..................................................................................................41
Tables 11a and 11b: Participation in Organized Activities and Student-Related Services
(Overall and Comparisons by Subgroups) ........................................................... 42-43
Figure 12: Overall Responses to Question 23, Participation in Student-Related Services
or Activities ................................................................................................................44
Figure 13: Overall Responses to Question 25d, Frequency of Participation in Diversity
Training or Workshops ..............................................................................................45
Tables 12a and 12b: Participation in Diversity-Related Efforts (Overall and Comparisons
by Subgroups) ...................................................................................................... 46-47
Figure 14: Overall Responses to Question 29c, “How Often Do You Present Material in a
Cultural Context in Your Classroom?” ......................................................................48
Tables 13a and 13b: Frequency of Interactions with People from Various Backgrounds
(Overall and Comparisons by Subgroups) ........................................................... 50-51
Figure 15: Overall Responses to Question 17, Frequency of Interaction at the University
with People from Various Backgrounds ....................................................................52
Tables 14a and 14b: Participation in Diversity-Related Conferences and Symposia
(Overall and Comparisons by Subgroups) .................................................................53
Figure 16: Overall Responses to Question 25a-c, Inclusion of Diversity in Acadmic
Activities ....................................................................................................................55
Tables 15a and 15b: Inclusion of Diversity in Academic Activities (Overall and
Comparisons by Subgroups) ......................................................................................56
iii
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. BACKGROUND
The University of Iowa has long been committed to diversity and inclusion for its faculty,
staff and student communities, as evidenced in the University’s mission and most recent
strategic plan, The Iowa Promise: A Strategic Plan for The University of Iowa 2005–2010,
which establishes diversity as both a core value and an explicit goal and articulates our
commitment to creating and maintaining an academic and working environment where all
members may flourish.
To ascertain whether all members of the University community are able to fulfill their
aspirations in an equitable manner, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, with the
support of former President David Skorton and the guidance of an advisory committee of
faculty, administrators, and staff from across campus, conducted diversity climate surveys in
2005. The advisory committee was charged to examine the following areas:
1. Campus climate for faculty, staff and students
a. Perceptions of access, equity and inclusion
b. Perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity
2. Level and quality of inter-group relations among faculty, staff and students
a. Quality of experience in living, learning and working environments
b. Levels of use and engagement in a variety of activities, offices and
resources
c. Level of faculty and staff participation in diversity-related efforts
3. Diversity awareness of faculty, staff and students
a. Level of exposure to diversity courses/programs and to diverse faculty,
staff and students
b. How much and what faculty, staff and students have learned about
diversity
Separate surveys were developed for undergraduate students, graduate/professional students,
faculty, and staff. Results of the four surveys are being analyzed and reported separately. As
survey reports become available, they will be posted on the project’s comprehensive website,
http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eeod/diversity_climate_surveys/, providing data to inform
institutional planning and decision-making and to identify areas for improvement. This report
presents results of the survey of the faculty. At the time of this publication, the undergraduate
student and graduate/professional student reports have been completed and are available on
the project website.
B. METHODOLOGY
The survey was developed by a subcommittee of staff members from the larger advisory
committee; the instrument was reviewed by the full advisory committee and the project’s
consulting statistician, pre-tested with a group of faculty, and revised to incorporate feedback.
The resultant survey focuses on respondents’ attitudes, perceptions of the attitudes of other
members of the campus community, and perceptions of the climate for diversity and equity on
campus.
v
The entire study population of 2,259 faculty members was invited to participate in the survey.
There were 792 responses, which constitutes a response rate of 35.1%. Females responded to
the survey at a higher rate than their representation in the population; in terms of
race/ethnicity and age group, the respondent group was roughly similar to the population.
C. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Quantitative survey items were analyzed for the overall respondent group and for subgroups
based on racial/ethnic group status (majority or minority), citizenship status (U.S.-born or
non-U.S.-born), gender (male or female), age group (26-35 years old, 36-45 years old, 46-55
years old, or 56 years old and older), and tenure status (tenured, tenure track but not tenured,
or non-tenure track). Differences among subgroups are considered statistically significant if
they achieve a confidence level of at least 95% (i.e., p-value of .05).
It must be noted that the available data from the quantitative survey questions do not explain
the reasons that respondents from different subgroups may have reported differences in their
experiences. Responses to the final survey item, an open-ended question asking respondents
to share any comments about the survey or information not covered by the survey questions,
may provide some insight, but further exploration is needed to better understand the causes of
any differences.
The page numbers where each survey area is discussed in the full report are noted in the
summaries below.
1.
Survey Area 1a: Perceptions of Access, Equity and Inclusion. Questions
addressing this survey area focused on respondents’ sense of connection with other
members of the campus community, perceived attitudes of their colleagues,
socializing with colleagues outside of the work environment, sense of belonging at
The University of Iowa, perception of diversity of backgrounds and race/ethnicity at
the University, and attendance at events where particular groups of people would not
feel welcome. While the overall responses to several survey items were positive,
racial/ethnic minority, non-U.S.-born, female, and older respondents reported
experiencing less access, equity, and inclusion than have majority, U.S.-born, male,
and younger respondents. (Discussed at pages 13-26 and 61-62.)
2.
Survey Area 1b: Perceptions of Institutional Commitment to Diversity. This
survey area asked questions related to respondents’ perception of the state of
academic freedom on campus, the University administration’s visibility as diversity
leaders, and the University’s diversity-related efforts in the previous five years.
Overall, 76% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the University of Iowa
provides an environment for the free and open expression of ideas, and 71% agreed
or strongly agreed that the University’s top administrators are active leaders in
promoting diversity. Results of some survey items indicated that minority, non-U.S.born, female, younger and non-tenured tenure track respondents perceived less
institutional commitment to diversity than did majority, U.S.-born, male, older and
tenured respondents. (Discussed at pages 27-33 and 62.)
vi
3.
Survey Area 2a: Quality of Experience in Living, Learning and Working
Environments. Respondents were asked to evaluate the impact of interactions with
people from different backgrounds and racial/ethnic groups on teaching and the level
of respect accorded to respondents’ ideas and opinions by departmental colleagues.
Respondents were also asked about classroom behaviors that can contribute to an
inclusive learning environment, their overall satisfaction with their faculty experience
at The University of Iowa, and the positive effects of colleagues on their professional
development. Many of the overall responses were positive, and there were relatively
few statistically significant differences in the responses across the subgroups
examined. (Discussed at pages 33-40 and 63.)
4.
Survey Area 2b: Levels of Use and Engagement in a Variety of Activities,
Offices and Resources. This survey area examined respondents’ participation in
organized University activities and student-related services and activities.
Respondents overall reported relatively low levels of participation in a variety of
organized activities (e.g., University athletic events, cultural programs, artistic and
musical performances, volunteer activities, and campus-wide committees), with
racial/ethnic minority, non-U.S.-born, younger, and non-tenured tenure track
respondents reporting lower levels of participation than their counterparts.
Participation in student-related services or activities appears to increase with age
group and with tenure. (Discussed at pages 41-44 and 64.)
5.
Survey Area 2c: Level of Faculty Participation in Diversity-Related Efforts. In
this section, respondents were asked about their participation in diversity
training/workshops, incorporation of the needs and concerns of diverse groups into
professional practice and/or course curricula, and presentation of course materials in
a cultural context. Results of questions from this survey area suggested relatively
low levels of participation in diversity-related efforts overall and by all of the
subgroups examined. (Discussed at pages 45-49 and 64-65.)
6.
Survey Area 3a: Level of Exposure to Diversity Courses/Programs and to
Diverse Faculty, Staff and Students. Questions in this survey area explored
respondents’ interaction with people from various backgrounds, participation in
University of Iowa symposia or conferences which incorporated diverse perspectives
into content, and participation in symposia or conferences outside of The University
of Iowa which incorporated diverse perspectives into content. Overall, respondents
reported mixed levels of interaction with people from diverse backgrounds and
relatively low levels of attendance at symposia or conferences which incorporated
diverse perspectives. (Discussed at pages 49-54 and 65.)
7.
Survey Area 3b: How Much and What Faculty Have Learned About Diversity.
To explore respondents’ knowledge of and insight into diversity, the survey queried
respondents about three distinct activities: research or writing focused on diversity,
incorporation of diverse perspectives into the curriculum, and presentations on
diversity. Overall, respondents reported low levels of activity focused on diversity
issues or integration of diverse perspectives into the curriculum. (Discussed at pages
55-57 and 66.)
vii
8. Additional Qualitative Analyses. One-hundred and forty-three (18.1%) of the 792
respondents replied to the open-ended survey item asking for comments about the
construction of the survey or information not covered by the survey questions.
General patterns in the respondents’ comments reinforced findings from the
quantitative analyses. Additional issues raised in the respondents’ comments include a
sense that the state legislature does not value the University; a lack of guidance for
new faculty in everyday procedures; resentment about salary and perk discrepancies,
questioning the substitution of diversity for class as an analytical device for societies;
and the value of a genuinely inclusive academic environment. (Discussed at pages 5758 and 66.)
D. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the snapshot of faculty respondents’ perceptions provided by the survey results, we
propose the following recommendations for consideration in conjunction with the goals and
strategies of The Iowa Promise (2005) and several other recent reports and surveys.
Additional recommendations will emerge as we examine patterns of results across the
undergraduate student, graduate/professional student, faculty, and staff surveys. Furthermore,
we encourage other individuals and groups on campus to reflect upon the results of this
survey and submit their own recommendations for future action or further study.
The page numbers where each recommendation is discussed in the full report are noted in the
summaries below.
Communication
1. Enhance demonstration of institutional commitment to diversity. We recommend
that the administration explore how best to communicate to faculty the institutional
commitment to diversity in the educational environment; likewise, collegiate leaders
should examine ways to publicize their commitment to diversity in their local
educational and workplace environments. (Discussed at page 67.)
2. Encourage dialogue with faculty in their respective colleges on the value of
diversity and inclusion in academia. An enhanced effort by collegiate deans and
central administrative officials to encourage open and respectful dialogue with their
faculty colleagues on the rationale for attention to the topic of diversity and inclusion
in academia would be highly beneficial. (Discussed at page 67.)
Student Engagement and Skill Development
3. Develop a critical mass of underrepresented students on campus. As called for in
The Iowa Promise (2005), a diverse learning environment where a critical mass of
underrepresented students has been developed enhances the ability of all students to
challenge stereotypes, develop complex critical thinking skills, and prepare to become
citizens and leaders in an increasingly global economy. (Discussed at page 68.)
viii
4. Enhance opportunities for faculty to develop their students’ diversity skills and
incorporate cultural competency. We recommend that the Office of the Provost
facilitate, promote, and continue to support collegiate efforts to provide students with
diversity skills and cultural competencies related to their fields of study. Colleges
with more advanced programs should be encouraged to share their best practices with
others. (Discussed at page 68.)
5. Provide diversity educational opportunities for students, and the faculty and staff
who interact with them, within their colleges/units. We recommend that the
colleges and divisions examine ways to partner with diversity offices such as the
Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, Human Resources, International Programs,
Center for Diversity and Enrichment, Women’s Resource and Action Center, and
Student Disability Services to provide educational opportunities to their faculty, staff,
and students. (Discussed at page 68.)
Future Research and Assessment
6. Conduct focus groups as a follow-up to the faculty diversity survey. As a followup to this diversity survey of faculty, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity
conducted focus groups. Focus group questions were framed to encourage intentional
conversations that address some of the survey findings and identify faculty-defined
proposals and solutions. Results of the faculty focus groups will be posted on the
Diversity Climate Survey website. (Discussed at page 68.)
7. Develop and institute diversity plans, design and implement assessment tools, and
establish benchmarks and scorecards for assessing and evaluating the
institutional diversity integration process. Diversity evaluation and assessment are
recommended by all major higher education professional organizations. We support
the development and implementation of a strategic planning process for diversity,
including regular assessment. We recommend that this process recognize the
distinctive experiences of undergraduate students, graduate/professional students,
faculty, and staff. (Discussed at page 69.)
8. Implement diversity indicators to track the faculty experience. We support the
development of indicators for a supportive diversity climate that the University can
track over time, as called for in the University’s strategic plan, The Iowa Promise
(2005). (Discussed at page 69.)
9. Assess the campus diversity climate for faculty on a regular basis. In order to
continually improve the campus climate for diversity, it will be necessary for the
University to periodically collect information from faculty, as well as from other
campus constituency groups (i.e., undergraduate students, graduate/professional
students and staff). We look forward to continued support from the Office of the
President and other offices in future years as we continue to monitor progress on
creating and maintaining a supportive campus environment for all faculty, staff, and
students. (Discussed at page 69.)
ix
x
I. BACKGROUND
A. DIVERSITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
The University of Iowa has been committed to diversity since its inception in 1847, when men
and women were admitted on an equal basis. Today, the increasingly diverse state, national,
and global environments represented and served by the University community are recognized
in its mission statement:
• to advance scholarly and creative endeavor through leading-edge research and artistic
production;
• to use this research and creativity to enhance undergraduate, graduate, and
professional education, health care, and other services provided to the people of Iowa,
the nation, and the world; and
• to educate students for success and personal fulfillment in an increasingly diverse and
global environment.
Changing demographics affect the available pool of faculty, staff, and students; the
characteristics of the individuals comprising the University community; and the competencies
required by graduates to succeed in their future roles as educators, health-care providers,
business leaders, public officials, and the myriad other ways Iowa alumni participate in local,
state, national, and global society. By responding to changes in the talent pool and demands
for more inclusive goods and services, The University of Iowa continues its tradition of
investing in the state of Iowa.
The University’s most recent strategic plan, The Iowa Promise: A Strategic Plan for The
University of Iowa 2005–2010 (2005), expressly articulates a commitment to creating and
maintaining an academic and working environment where all members may flourish by
establishing diversity as both a core value and an explicit goal.
Diversity is identified in the strategic plan as one of the University’s seven core values, along
with excellence, learning, community, integrity, respect, and responsibility. “Because
diversity, broadly defined, advances its mission of teaching, research, and service, the
University is dedicated to an inclusive community in which people of different cultural,
national, individual, and academic backgrounds encounter one another in a spirit of
cooperation, openness, and shared appreciation” (The Iowa Promise, 2005, p. 3).
The Iowa Promise (2005) also establishes goals in five areas: undergraduate education,
graduate and professional education and research, diversity, vitality, and engagement. The
diversity goal is “to promote excellence in education by increasing the diversity of the faculty,
staff, and students” (p. 8). The following strategies are presented in pages 8-9 of the strategic
plan.
1
•
•
•
Promote a welcoming climate that enhances the educational and work experience
for all members of the community and prepares our graduates to live in an
increasingly global environment by:
o Developing new methods to create a more respectful and inclusive climate;
o Developing new opportunities that enhance the cultural competency of faculty,
staff, and students;
o Improving retention and graduation rates for students of color;
o Creating a more welcoming and accessible environment for faculty, staff, students,
and visitors with disabilities;
o Improving interaction among domestic and international faculty, staff, and
students.
Build a critical mass of underrepresented faculty, staff, and students by:
o Increasing the diversity of the faculty, especially in tenured and tenure track
positions;
o Increasing the diversity of those in executive, administrative, and managerial
positions;
o Educating faculty and staff in the best practices for recruiting underrepresented
faculty, staff, and students;
o Developing a more effective marketing strategy and recruiting more effectively
from high schools, community colleges, and colleges and universities with
substantial populations of underrepresented students;
o Engaging with schools and school districts to understand and address the needs of
at-risk students and the disparities in K-12 education;
o Improving access and opportunity for underrepresented students and students of
disadvantaged socioeconomic status by increasing scholarships while decreasing
reliance on loans.
Hold all parts of the University community accountable for improving the
climate for diversity and building a critical mass of underrepresented faculty,
staff, and students by:
o Designing comprehensive plans that will guide campus and unit diversity efforts
and developing performance measures by which to evaluate the success of those
plans;
o Integrating diversity performance measures into evaluations and reviews.
B. THE DIVERSITY CAMPUS CLIMATE SURVEYS
In the summer of 2004, Charlotte Westerhaus, former Assistant to the President and Director
of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, proposed to former President David Skorton that the
Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity conduct a diversity climate assessment of the
University’s faculty, staff and students to ascertain whether all members of the University
community are able to fulfill their aspirations in an equitable manner. President Skorton
approved the proposal and invited a group of faculty, administrators, and staff from across
campus to serve on the Diversity Campus Climate Survey Advisory Committee.
The advisory committee met for the first time in September 2004. Members included:
• Susan Buckley, Vice President for Human Resources
• Marcella David, Special Assistant to the President for Equal Opportunity and
Diversity and Associate Provost
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Madgetta Dungy, former Assistant Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development,
College of Medicine
Phillip Jones, former Vice President for Student Services and Dean of Students
John Keller, Dean, Graduate College
Philip Kutzko, Professor of Mathematics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Diana Leventry, Senior Associate Director, Human Resources
Jennifer Modestou, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity
Robin Paetzold, Global Programs Director for Student Affairs and Curriculum,
College of Medicine
Dorothy Persson, Head Librarian, Psychology Library, University of Iowa Libraries
Jennifer Richman, former Coordinator – Campus Programs and Student Activities,
Student Services
Jill Robinson, Data Specialist, Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity
Victor Rodgers, former Professor, Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, College of
Engineering
Dorothy Simpson-Taylor, Director of Diversity Resources, Office of Equal
Opportunity and Diversity
Carlette Washington-Hoagland, Coordinator of Assessment and Staff Development,
University of Iowa Libraries
Charlotte Westerhaus, former Assistant to the President and Director, Office of Equal
Opportunity and Diversity
The formal charge from the President to the advisory committee was to conduct a diversity
climate assessment survey of undergraduate and graduate/professional students, faculty, and
staff at the University, examining the following areas:
1. Campus climate for faculty, staff and students
a. Perceptions of access, equity and inclusion
b. Perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity
2. Level and quality of inter-group relations among faculty, staff and students
a. Quality of experience in living, learning and working environments
b. Levels of use and engagement in a variety of activities, offices and
resources
c. Level of faculty and staff participation in diversity-related efforts
3. Diversity awareness of faculty, staff and students
a. Level of exposure to diversity courses/programs and to diverse faculty,
staff and students
b. How much and what faculty, staff and students have learned about
diversity
Separate surveys were developed for each of the constituency groups identified in the charge:
undergraduate students, graduate/professional students, faculty, and staff. The surveys were
disseminated in the spring and fall semesters of 2005. Results of the four surveys are being
analyzed and reported separately. As survey reports become available, they will be posted on
http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eeod/diversity_climate_surveys/, the project’s comprehensive
website, providing data to inform institutional planning and decision-making and to identify
areas for improvement. This report presents results of the survey of the faculty. At the time
of this publication, the undergraduate student and graduate/professional student reports have
been completed and are available on the project website.
3
This report presents results from the survey of the faculty conducted in the fall semester of
2005. Chapter II describes the survey methodology. Findings are presented in Chapter III.
Chapter IV summarizes the survey findings and offers recommendations based on the
findings. Appendix A contains the survey instrument, Appendix B includes e-mail
correspondence to members of the study population, and Appendix C presents the overall
frequencies of responses to most of the survey items.
4
II. METHODOLOGY
A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Survey development began in April 2005 by a subcommittee of seven University of Iowa staff
members1 from the larger Diversity Campus Climate Survey Advisory Committee appointed
by President Skorton. The subcommittee reviewed several diversity surveys conducted at
other academic institutions. While many of these surveys focused on respondents’ experience
of others’ negative behaviors and attitudes, the instrument developed for this study focused
more on respondents’ attitudes, perceptions of the attitudes of other members of the campus
community, and perceptions of the climate for diversity and equity on campus. This
conceptual framework is consistent with the charge to the committee, described in Chapter I
of this report.
Drafts of the survey were reviewed by the full committee and by the project’s consulting
statistician, Dr. Timothy Ansley, Associate Professor in the Department of Psychological and
Quantitative Foundations in the College of Education. Approximately fifty faculty members
were invited to pre-test the instrument, which was pre-tested by two faculty members in
August 2005. The instrument was modified to incorporate feedback from the reviewers and
pre-test group and an online version was developed via SurveyMonkey, an online survey
software product. The final survey instrument is reproduced in Appendix A of this report.
B. STUDY POPULATION AND RESPONDENTS
The study population for the survey was defined as all faculty members whose primary
appointment at The University of Iowa was as tenure track professor, clinical track professor,
faculty administrator, lecturer, instructor, or assistant in instruction on September 8, 2005.
Visiting faculty, adjunct faculty, fellows, and postdoctoral scholars were not included in the
population.
Using University of Iowa Human Resources Information System data, the study population of
2,259 faculty members was pulled on September 8, 2005, by Office of Equal Opportunity and
Diversity staff. University identification numbers of population members were provided to
The University of Iowa Mass E-mail Service.
There were 792 responses to the survey, which constitutes a response rate of 35.1%.
Characteristics of the population and respondents are presented in Table 1 on page 7.
(Additional characteristics of the respondents are described in Chapter III, Table 2, page 10,
and in Appendix C, which provides the overall frequencies for most survey items.) Females
responded to the survey at a higher rate than their representation in the population, while
males responded at a lower rate. In terms of race/ethnicity and age group, the respondent
group was roughly similar to the population.
1
The subcommittee consisted of Charlotte Westerhaus, Jennifer Modestou, Dorothy Simpson-Taylor, and Jill
Robinson of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity; Dorothy Persson and Carlette Washington-Hoagland
of University of Iowa Libraries; and Robin Paetzold of the College of Medicine. The full committee is listed in
Chapter I of this report.
5
C. CONFIDENTIALITY
The identities of the survey respondents were confidential as surveys were submitted
anonymously. No effort was made to identify individual respondents.
D. SURVEY DISTRIBUTION
Population members were invited by e-mail to participate in the online survey. Three separate
e-mails were sent to the population by the Mass E-mail Service. Because the identities of the
survey respondents were confidential, it was not possible to track which individuals had
completed the survey; therefore, all population members received each of the e-mails. The emails are reproduced in Appendix B of this report.
The mass e-mail invitations were addressed from Jennifer Modestou, then Interim Assistant to
the President and Director of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, and included links to the
online survey. The first mass e-mail, sent on September 12, 2005, explained that participation
in the survey was voluntary and anonymous and asked recipients to complete and submit the
survey by September 26. The second e-mail, sent September 19, thanked those recipients
who had completed the survey and requested those who had not to do so by September 26.
The final e-mail was sent on September 26, again thanking those who had completed the
survey and extending the deadline for those who had not yet participated to do so to
September 28.
A small number of e-mails to individual members of the population “bounced” or were not
deliverable, e.g., the e-mail address was no longer valid or the recipient’s account would not
accept the e-mail. Individuals to whom any of the e-mails bounced remained in the
population, and contact with them was re-attempted with the second and/or third e-mails.
Bounced e-mails were not tracked, so it is not known how many of the bounces were
duplicated among the three mailings or precisely how many population members did not
receive any of the three e-mails.
6
Table 1
Gender and Racial/Ethnic Composition of Study Population and Respondent Group
Subgrouping
Category
White American, not of
Hispanic Origin
Asian/ Pacific Island
American
Race/ Ethnicity
Hispanic/ Latino
American
Black/ African American
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
Not Reported/
Multiracial/ Other a
Male
Gender
Female
Not Reported/
Transgender b
Study
Population
N=2,259
1,926
85.3%
186
8.2%
52
2.3%
45
2.0%
9
0.4%
41
1.8%
85.7%
50
6.3%
22
2.8%
17
2.1%
5
0.6%
19
2.4%
1,522
67.4%
737
32.6%
448
56.6%
319
40.3%
25
3.2%
0
25 years or younger
26-35 years
36-45 years
Age
46-55 years
56 years or older
Not Reported
Respondents
n=792
679
1
<0.1%
0
228
74
10.1%
9.3%
616
218
27.3%
27.5%
781
268
34.6%
33.8%
623
209
27.6%
26.4%
10
23
0.4%
2.9%
Source for population data: Compiled University of Iowa workforce data.
a
The University of Iowa Human Resources Information System does not utilize
multiracial or other race/ethnicity categories.
b
The University of Iowa Human Resources Information System does not utilize
transgender categories.
7
8
III. SURVEY FINDINGS
A. SURVEY THEMES
This chapter presents survey findings related to the topical areas the Diversity Campus
Climate Survey committee was charged to examine:
1. Campus climate for faculty, staff, and students
a. Perceptions of access, equity, and inclusion
b. Perceptions of institutional commitment to diversity
2. Level and quality of intergroup relations among faculty, staff, and students
a. Quality of experience in living, learning, and working environments
b. Levels of use and engagement in a variety of activities, offices, and resources
c. Level of faculty and staff participating in diversity-related efforts
3. Diversity awareness of faculty, staff, and students
a. Level of exposure to diversity courses and programs and to diverse faculty,
staff, and students
b. How much and what faculty, staff, and students have learned about diversity
The final item on the survey was an open-ended question asking respondents to share any
comments about the survey or information not covered by the survey questions. One-hundred
and forty-three (18.1%) of the 792 respondents offered comments, some of which fell within
the scope of the survey areas described above and are included in this chapter’s discussion of
the findings for the survey areas. In addition, issues were raised that were beyond the original
scope of the survey. These additional themes identified in the open-ended comments are
discussed at the end of this chapter.
B. RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Demographic characteristics of the 792 survey respondents are presented in Table 2 (page
10). 2 Females responded to the survey at a higher rate than their representation in the
population, while males responded at a lower rate. Due to differences in data collection, other
characteristics can not be directly compared to institutional data; for example, the University
does not utilize a biracial/multiracial category, and many characteristics collected in the
survey are not collected by the University at all, e.g., native language and religious affiliation.
In spite of these limitations, the respondent group appeared to be roughly similar to the
faculty as a whole in terms of race/ethnicity and age group.
2
Additional respondent characteristics are presented in Appendix C, which provides the overall frequencies of
responses to most survey items.
9
Table 2: Survey Respondents’ Demographic Profile
N = 792
Characteristic
Number Percent
Race/Ethnicity
n=781
White, non-Hispanic
679
86.9%
Asian/Pacific Islander
50
6.4%
Hispanic/Latino
22
2.8%
African American/Black
17
2.2%
Biracial/multiracial
8
1.0%
Native American/Alaskan
5
0.6%
Not reported
11
Citizenship Status
n=786
U.S.-born citizen
645
82.1%
Foreign-born naturalized cit.
70
8.9%
Foreign-born resident alien or
52
6.6%
permanent resident
Visa holder
16
2.0%
Other
3
0.4%
Not reported
6
Gender
n=767
Male
448
58.4%
Female
319
41.6%
Not reported
25
Age Group
n=769
18-25 years
0
26-35 years
74
9.6%
36-45 years
218
28.3%
46-55 years
268
34.9%
56-65 years
170
22.1%
66 years or older
39
5.1%
Not reported
23
Faculty Status
n=760
Tenured
454
59.7%
Non-tenured, tenure track
151
19.9%
Clinical track
107
14.1%
Other non-tenure track
48
6.3%
Not reported
32
Years as Faculty Member at
n=760
The University of Iowa
Less than 2 years
104
13.7%
2 or more but less than 5
128
16.8%
5 or more but less than 10
137
18.0%
10 or more but less than 20
202
26.6%
20 or more
189
24.9%
Not reported
32
Characteristic
College
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Medicine
Education
Business
Pharmacy
Nursing
Dentistry
Public Health
Engineering
Law
Graduate College
Other (including dual appt)
Not reported
Disability Status
Yes (disability reported)
No (no disability reported)
Not reported
Native Language
English
Other language
Not reported
Sexual Identity
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Gay
Lesbian
Other sexual identity
Not reported
Marital / Partner Status
Married
Single
Domestic partner
Legally separated
Not reported
Current Religious Affiliation
Christian
None
Jewish
Hindu
Buddhist
Muslim
Other religion
Not reported
10
Number Percent
n=756
304
40.2%
192
25.4%
46
6.1%
36
4.8%
28
3.7%
27
3.6%
26
3.4%
25
3.3%
22
2.9%
18
2.4%
4
0.5%
28
3.7%
36
n=745
34
4.6%
711
95.4%
47
n=787
686
87.2%
101
12.8%
5
n=750
708
94.4%
15
2.0%
12
1.6%
11
1.5%
4
0.5%
42
n=758
593
78.2%
120
15.8%
35
4.6%
10
1.3%
34
n=737
394
53.5%
228
30.9%
51
6.9%
16
2.2%
12
1.6%
11
1.5%
25
3.4%
55
C. DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
This chapter presents findings for all of the quantitative survey questions, as well as responses
to the final, open-ended survey item selected to illustrate the types of observations and
concerns raised in the comments. Respondents’ comments, or excerpts thereof, appear in
italic print. 3 (Appendix C presents the overall frequencies of responses to most survey items.)
For each of the quantitative survey questions, findings are reported for the overall respondent
group and for subgroups based on racial/ethnic group status (majority or minority 4),
citizenship status (U.S.-born or non-U.S.-born 5), gender (male or female), age group (26-35
years old, 36-45 years old, 46-55 years old, or 56 years old and older), and tenure status
(tenured, tenure track but not tenured, or non-tenure track). The numbers and percentages of
respondents in these subgroupings are presented in Table 3 (page 12).
Mean scores or percentages6 are presented for each quantitative analysis. The number of
respondents who answered any given survey question varied due to both the logic of the
survey (i.e., respondents were not asked questions that, based on answers to previous
questions, did not apply to them) and to individual respondents choosing not to answer
particular items. Missing data were not included in the calculations of means and
percentages. Due to space limitations, the number (n) of respondents answering each question
is not reported (although the total numbers of respondents in each subgroup appear in Table 3,
page 12, as noted above, and the overall frequencies for most survey items are included in
Appendix C).
Statistical analyses were conducted to assess whether subgroups of respondents reported
differential experiences vis-à-vis the survey areas described above. In this report, differences
among subgroups are considered statistically significant if they achieve a confidence level of
at least 95%, which means that one can be 95% confident that the finding is not the result of
chance alone and which corresponds to a p-value of .05. In the tables in this chapter,
confidence levels are reported using asterisks to represent different p-value levels, as follows:
*
p ≤ .05
or 95% confidence level
**
p ≤ .01
or 99% confidence level
***
p ≤ .001 or 99.9% confidence level
In other words, more asterisks warrant greater confidence that the observed difference among
subgroups is not the result of chance alone. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the observed
difference among subgroups is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level or
higher (i.e., the p-value is greater than .05).
3
Comments were excerpted to remove references to specific individuals, extraneous detail, and additional topics
not related to the survey area under discussion. Abbreviations were expanded, and spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, and typographical errors were corrected.
4
For purposes of the analyses described in this chapter, respondents who selected White, non-Hispanic as their
race/ethnicity were included in the majority racial/ethnic category; the minority racial/ethnic group category was
comprised of respondents who selected Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, African American/Black,
biracial/multiracial, Native American/Alaskan Native, or other.
5
For purposes of the analyses described in this chapter, respondents who selected U.S. citizen as their
citizenship status were included in the U.S.-born category; the non-U.S.-born category was comprised of
respondents who selected foreign-born naturalized citizen, foreign-born resident alien or permanent resident,
visa holder, or other.
6
In this chapter, means are presented for items with scaled responses, while percentages are presented for items
with categorical responses. The overall frequencies for most survey items are presented in Appendix C.
11
It must be noted that the available data from the quantitative survey questions do not explain
the reasons that respondents from different subgroups may have reported differences in their
experiences. Qualitative data from the respondents’ comments may provide some insight, but
further exploration is needed to better understand the causes of any differences.
Table 3: Subgroups Used in Comparative Analyses
Percentage
Percentage
of
of Total
Respondents
Number Respondents in Subgroup
N=792
(N)
Analyses
Subgrouping
Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Majority: identified as White, non-Hispanic
Minority: identified as Asian/Pacific Islander,
Hispanic/Latino, African American/Black, Biracial/
multiracial, or Native American/Alaskan Native
Not included in racial/ethnic subgroup analyses: did
not report race/ethnicity
Citizenship Status
U.S.-born: identified as U.S.-born citizen
Non-U.S.-born: identified as foreign-born resident
alien or permanent resident, foreign-born naturalized
citizen, student visa holder, or other
Not included in citizenship status subgroup analyses:
did not report citizenship status
Gender
Male
Female
Not included in gender subgroup analyses: did not
report gender
Age Group
26-35 years
36-45 years
46-55 years
56 years or older
Not included in age subgroup analyses: did not report
age
Faculty Status
Tenured
Non-tenured, tenure track
Non-tenure track
Not included in degree goal subgroup analyses: did
not report faculty status
12
679
85.7%
86.9%
102
12.9%
13.1%
11
1.4%
(excluded)
645
81.4%
82.1%
141
17.8%
17.9%
6
0.8%
(excluded)
448
319
56.6%
40.3%
58.4%
41.6%
25
3.2%
(excluded)
74
218
268
209
9.3%
27.5%
33.8%
26.4%
9.6%
28.3%
34.9%
27.2%
23
2.9%
(excluded)
454
151
155
57.3%
19.1%
19.6%
59.7%
19.9%
20.4%
32
4.0%
(excluded)
D. SURVEY AREA 1A: PERCEPTIONS OF ACCESS, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
To explore issues of access, equity, and inclusion, the survey queried respondents about:
• Sense of connection with other members of the campus community
• Attitudes of their colleagues
• Socializing with colleagues outside of the work environment
• Sense of belonging at The University of Iowa
• Perception of diversity of backgrounds and race/ethnicity at the University
• Attendance at events where particular groups of people would not feel welcome
Tables 4a and 4b (Question 19a-f, pages 14-15) present the results of a six-part question
asking respondents to rate their level of ease in connecting with other members of the
campus community, using a 5-point scale where 1 = very difficult and 5 = very easy (the
midpoint of 3 = undecided). For the six items, the overall mean responses ranged from 3.25
(find an academic/professional mentor at the University) to 3.84 (have your DEOs/senior
faculty think you are capable of doing quality work). Racial/ethnic minority respondents
tended to report less ease than did racial/ethnic majority respondents, with statistically
significant differences observed for three of the six items. Non-U.S.-born respondents
reported significantly less ease for four of the six items than did U.S.-born respondents.
Significant differences based on gender were observed for three of the six items, with females
reporting less ease. Differences based on age group were statistically significant for five of
the six items, with respondents who were 56 years or older reporting the most ease and, in
most cases, the 26-35 year-old respondents reporting the least ease. The pattern of responses
varied from item to item based on the respondents’ tenure status, with significant differences
for two of the items.
Two questions asked respondents to describe their perceptions of their colleagues’ attitudes
(Question 21a and e, Tables 4a and 4b, pages 14-15), using a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree with given statements (the midpoint of 3 = neither agree nor
disagree). Overall, the mean response for the statement “I have encountered colleagues who
believe I do not have a right to be here” was 2.33. Significant differences were observed
based on racial/ethnic group status and gender, with majority and male respondents reporting
more disagreement with the statement. Overall, the mean response for the statement “Most of
my colleagues are supportive of the University’s affirmative action policy” was 3.86. As
shown in Figure 1 (page 16), there were significant differences based on racial/ethnic group
status, citizenship status, and gender, with majority, U.S.-born, and male respondents
reporting higher levels of agreement with the statement.
13
Table 4a: Sense of Connection with the Campus Community, Colleagues’ Attitudes, and Socializing with Colleagues
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 19. Based on your experience at The University of Iowa, how easy or difficult is it to:
1= Very Difficult
2= Difficult
3= Undecided
4= Easy
5= Very Easy
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
a. Find people on campus who share your
background and experiences
b. Find people with whom to socialize
c. Interact with faculty outside of your
discipline/department
d. Have your DEOs/senior faculty think you
are capable of doing quality work
e. Find colleagues at the University with
whom to conduct research
f. Find an academic/professional mentor at UI
Citizenship Status
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
pvalue 1
3.82
3.91
3.26
***
3.89
3.46
3.68
3.75
3.22
***
3.73
3.45
3.47
3.24
3.84
3.87
3.66
3.58
3.62
3.33
3.25
3.28
3.02
*
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
***
3.84
3.81
3.40
**
3.61
3.73
3.50
3.20
**
3.33
3.53
3.87
3.72
3.77
3.90
3.62
3.41
3.42
3.70
***
3.28
3.09
3.09
3.36
***
Q 21. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
1= Strongly Disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4= Agree
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
a. I have encountered colleagues who believe
I do not have a right to be here
e. Most of my colleagues are supportive of
the University’s affirmative action policy
Gender
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
*
Mean
Minority
Mean
pvalue 1
2.33
2.27
2.67
**
2.31
2.38
3.86
3.91
3.55
***
3.92
3.57
*
5= Strongly Agree
Citizenship Status
Majority
Mean
pvalue 1
Gender
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
***
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
pvalue 1
2.44
2.24
*
3.77
3.93
*
Q 22. To what degree are you included in social activities with your colleagues outside of the work environment?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Mean
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Gender
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
3.27
pvalue 1
3.21
3.22
3.13
3.21
3.17
3.13
*** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
14
Table 4b: Sense of Connection with the Campus Community, Colleagues’ Attitudes, and Socializing with Colleagues
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 19. Based on your experience at The University of Iowa, how easy or difficult is it to:
1= Very Difficult
2= Difficult
3= Undecided
4= Easy
5= Very Easy
Overall
a. Find people on campus who share your
background and experiences
b. Find people with whom to socialize
c. Interact with faculty outside of your
discipline/department
d. Have your DEOs/senior faculty think you
are capable of doing quality work
e. Find colleagues at the University with
whom to conduct research
f. Find an academic/professional mentor at UI
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
3.82
3.68
3.81
3.68
4.05
**
3.82
3.65
3.99
3.68
3.52
3.63
3.57
3.92
**
3.68
3.55
3.80
3.45
2.99
3.40
3.42
3.68
***
3.56
3.29
3.27
3.84
3.68
3.89
3.74
3.98
*
3.88
3.74
3.82
3.58
3.43
3.64
3.51
3.66
3.62
3.54
3.49
3.25
3.31
3.23
3.08
3.45
3.23
3.32
3.21
**
Q 21. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
1= Strongly Disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4= Agree
Overall
a. I have encountered colleagues who believe
I do not have a right to be here
e. Most of my colleagues are supportive of
the University’s affirmative action policy
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
*
**
5= Strongly Agree
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
2.33
2.18
2.24
2.44
2.31
2.32
2.15
2.49
3.86
3.88
3.83
3.80
3.96
3.87
3.85
3.86
Q 22. To what degree are you included in social activities with your colleagues outside of the work environment?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall
Mean
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01
Age (in Years)
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
Tenure Status
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
3.21
3.24
3.23
3.10
3.32
3.23
3.28
3.06
*** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
15
Figure 1: Statistically Significant Differences for Question 21c,
“Most of My Colleagues Are Supportive of the University’s Affirmative Action Policy”
Mean Response
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
M
al
e
N
on
-
U
Fe
m
ale
Sbo
rn
or
n
Sb
U
M
in
or
ity
M
aj
or
ity
O
ve
ra
ll
3.2
Scale: 1=Strongly Disgree to 5=Strongly Agree
Question 22 (Tables 4a and 4b, pages 14-15) asked respondents about their degree of
socializing with colleagues outside of the work environment, using a 5-point scale where 1 =
never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = very frequently. The overall mean
response was 3.21. There were no significant differences among any of the subgroups
examined.
When asked if they felt as though they belonged at The University of Iowa, 86.3% of
respondents said yes and 13.8% said no (Question 20, Tables 5a and 5b, pages 18-19, and
Figure 2 below). Racial/ethnic majority respondents were significantly more likely to report
feeling that they belong at the University than were minority respondents. None of the other
differences among subgroups were statistically significant.
Figure 2: Overall Responses to Question 20,
“Overall, Do You Feel as Though You Belong at The University of Iowa?”
No
14%
Yes
86%
16
Tables 5a and 5b (Question 16a-f, pages 18-19) show the results of questions regarding
respondents’ perceptions of the diversity of backgrounds at The University of Iowa,
specifically, whether the environment is diverse enough to provide sufficient opportunities to
interact with people who are from a different country, politically conservative, politically
liberal, from a different sexual identity group, from a different religious background, and
persons with a physical and/or mental disability. Response categories were yes, no, and don’t
know. As shown in Figure 3 below, for the six items, the percentage of respondents who
selected yes ranged from 70.7% (persons with a disability) to 91.9% (politically liberal).
There were significant differences based on racial/ethnic group status for five of the six items,
with majority respondents more likely to reply yes (i.e., that the University environment is
diverse enough to provide opportunities to interact with people from different backgrounds)
and minority respondents more likely to reply no or don’t know. Differences based on
citizenship status were significant for all of the items, with U.S.-born respondents more likely
to reply yes and non-U.S.-born respondents more likely to reply no or don’t know. The
pattern of responses based on gender was mixed, with significant differences for two of the
items. In general, older respondents were more likely to reply yes and younger respondents
more likely to reply no or don’t know, with significant differences for four of the items.
Tenured respondents replied yes significantly more frequently to four of the items than did
non-tenured tenure track and non-tenure track respondents, while non-tenure track
respondents were more likely to reply yes to one item.
Figure 3: Overall Responses to Question 16,
Perception of Diversity of Backgrounds and Race/Ethnicity at The University of Iowa
100%
80%
60%
Yes
40%
20%
D
n ty
y
l
al
r
e
c
d.
ntr ativ bera al i li gio bil i lack sian ani me hite iraci
u
v Li xu re isa B A isp e A W lt
o
u
t c nser
d
H tiv
se f.
n
a
f. Dif ave
i/m
re Co
f
i
e
N
B
D
H
iff
17
Table 5a: Sense of Belonging and Perception of Diversity of Backgrounds at The University of Iowa
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 20. Overall, do you feel as though you belong at The University of Iowa?
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Yes
No
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
pvalue 1
86.3%
13.8%
87.8%
12.2%
78.7%
21.3%
*
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
87.6%
12.4%
82.3%
17.7%
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
85.6%
14.4%
87.9%
12.1%
pvalue 1
Q 16. Is The University of Iowa environment diverse enough to provide you with sufficient opportunities to interact with people who are:
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
pvalue 1
Yes
87.1%
88.4%
77.6%
88.4%
80.5%
83.0% 89.8%
No
10.4%
9.8%
14.3%
***
9.6%
14.1%
*
14.0%
7.9%
*
Don’t Know
2.6%
1.7%
8.2%
2.0%
5.5%
3.0%
2.3%
Yes
71.2%
73.8%
55.2%
73.6%
59.5%
71.6% 71.2%
b. Politically conservative
No
14.7%
14.7%
13.5%
***
15.2%
12.7%
***
11.7% 16.5%
Don’t Know
14.1%
11.5%
31.3%
11.2%
27.8%
16.7% 12.3%
Yes
91.9%
94.8%
73.2%
95.2%
76.4%
92.3% 91.6%
c. Politically liberal
No
1.2%
0.6%
5.2%
***
0.8%
3.1%
***
2.3%
0.5%
*
Don’t Know
6.8%
4.6%
21.6%
4.0%
20.5%
5.3%
7.9%
Yes
78.9%
82.5%
54.6%
84.9%
50.4%
80.6% 77.8%
d. From a sexual identity
group different from
No
4.1%
3.7%
7.2%
***
3.0%
9.4%
***
4.3%
3.7%
your own
Don’t Know
17.0%
13.8%
38.1%
12.1%
40.2%
15.1% 18.5%
Yes
85.1%
86.2%
77.1%
87.1%
75.6%
83.3% 86.2%
e. From a religious
background different
No
5.6%
6.0%
3.1%
***
5.3%
7.1%
**
7.0%
4.7%
from your own
Don’t Know
9.3%
7.8%
19.8%
7.6%
17.3%
9.7%
9.1%
Yes
70.7%
70.9%
68.4%
72.6%
61.8%
67.4% 72.8%
f. Persons with a physical
No
12.6%
13.4%
8.4%
12.7%
12.2%
**
15.1% 11.0%
and/or mental disability
Don’t Know
16.6%
15.7%
23.2%
14.7%
26.0%
17.4% 16.2%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
a. From a different country
18
Table 5b: Sense of Belonging and Perception of Diversity of Backgrounds at The University of Iowa
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 20. Overall, do you feel as though you belong at The University of Iowa?
Overall
Yes
No
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Percent
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
86.3%
13.8%
89.7%
10.3%
84.1%
15.9%
85.5%
14.5%
90.0%
10.0%
86.8%
13.2%
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
82.6%
17.4%
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
90.5%
9.5%
Q 16. Is The University of Iowa environment diverse enough to provide you with sufficient opportunities to interact with people who are:
Overall
Percent
Age (in Years)
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
Tenure Status
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
Yes
87.1%
84.3% 86.9% 86.2% 89.3%
87.8%
82.4%
89.4%
No
10.4%
10.0%
9.3% 12.3%
9.2%
10.4%
12.8%
7.9%
Don’t Know
2.6%
5.7%
3.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.8%
4.7%
2.6%
Yes
71.2%
62.9% 74.6% 69.2% 73.5%
73.3%
65.8%
70.9%
b. Politically conservative No
14.7%
12.9% 10.8% 18.6% 14.3%
*
15.9%
14.4%
11.3%
Don’t Know
14.1%
24.3% 14.6% 12.3% 12.2%
10.8%
19.9%
17.9%
Yes
91.9%
88.6% 89.7% 93.3% 93.8%
94.2%
89.8%
87.4%
c. Politically liberal
No
1.2%
0.0%
2.3%
1.6%
0.0%
1.6%
0.7%
0.7%
Don’t Know
6.8%
11.4%
8.0%
5.1%
6.2%
4.2%
9.5%
11.9%
78.9%
68.6% 73.6% 81.1% 85.6%
83.1%
69.2%
76.2%
d. From a sexual identity Yes
group different from
No
4.1%
4.3%
6.6%
3.1%
2.6%
*
4.2%
5.5%
2.6%
your own
Don’t Know
17.0%
27.1% 19.8% 15.7% 11.9%
12.7%
25.3%
21.2%
Yes
85.1%
78.6% 83.5% 85.0% 89.2%
87.1%
79.5%
84.8%
e. From a religious
background different
No
5.6%
2.9%
8.0%
4.3%
5.6%
*
6.5%
5.5%
3.3%
from your own
Don’t Know
9.3%
18.6%
8.5% 10.7%
5.1%
6.5%
15.1%
11.9%
70.7%
57.1% 65.7% 71.1% 80.4%
72.9%
59.3%
75.3%
f. Persons with a physical Yes
and/or mental
No
12.6%
8.6% 15.7% 13.8%
9.3% ***
12.3%
13.1%
13.3%
disability
Don’t Know
16.6%
34.3% 18.6% 15.0% 10.3%
14.8%
27.6%
11.3%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
a. From a different
country
19
*
**
**
*
**
Table 6a: Perception of Racial/Ethnic Diversity at The University of Iowa
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 16. Is The University of Iowa environment diverse enough to provide you with sufficient opportunities to interact with people who are:
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
pvalue 1
Yes
55.9%
56.3%
52.1%
55.6%
57.3%
47.7% 61.3%
No
38.5%
39.0%
35.1%
**
40.1%
30.6%
***
45.6% 33.7% ***
Don’t Know
5.7%
4.6%
12.8%
4.3%
12.1%
6.7%
5.0%
Yes
82.9%
83.9%
75.0%
84.2%
76.2%
78.2% 85.9%
h. Asian American/Asian
No
13.2%
12.6%
17.7%
12.9%
14.3%
**
18.1%
9.8%
**
Don’t Know
4.0%
3.5%
7.3%
2.8%
9.5%
3.7%
4.2%
Yes
59.3%
60.2%
52.6%
60.0%
55.9%
54.7% 62.1%
i. Hispanic/Latino
No
34.1%
34.7%
30.9%
***
35.0%
29.9%
***
40.3% 30.1%
*
Don’t Know
6.6%
5.1%
16.5%
5.0%
14.2%
5.0%
7.8%
Yes
26.8%
27.8%
19.6%
27.6%
22.8%
22.1% 29.8%
j. Native American/
No
59.3%
60.4%
52.6%
***
61.1%
51.2%
***
63.4% 56.6%
American Indian
Don’t Know
13.9%
11.8%
27.8%
11.3%
26.0%
14.4% 13.6%
Yes
96.4%
97.8%
87.6%
97.8%
89.6%
97.0% 96.0%
k. White/Caucasian (nonNo
1.0%
0.8%
2.1%
***
0.7%
2.4%
***
0.3%
1.4%
Hispanic/non-Latino)
Don’t Know
2.6%
1.4%
10.3%
1.5%
8.0%
2.7%
2.6%
Yes
53.4%
54.5%
45.8%
54.7%
47.6%
49.5% 55.7%
l. Biracial/multiracial
No
22.6%
22.5%
24.0%
22.7%
22.2%
26.4% 20.1%
Don’t Know
24.0%
23.0%
30.2%
22.7%
30.2%
24.1% 24.2%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
g. African American/
Black/Black other
20
Table 6b: Perception of Racial/Ethnic Diversity at The University of Iowa
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 16. Is The University of Iowa environment diverse enough to provide you with sufficient opportunities to interact with people who are:
Overall
Percent
Age (in Years)
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
Tenure Status
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
Yes
55.9%
52.2% 45.7% 58.2% 65.1%
56.9%
40.3%
67.8%
No
38.5%
34.8% 47.6% 36.7% 32.3% ***
39.4%
47.2%
27.5%
***
Don’t Know
5.7%
13.0%
6.7%
5.2%
2.6%
3.7%
12.5%
4.7%
Yes
82.9%
70.0% 79.3% 87.3% 85.5%
85.4%
69.2%
88.7%
h. Asian American/Asian No
13.2%
20.0% 16.0%
9.9% 11.9%
**
12.5%
20.5%
7.9%
***
Don’t Know
4.0%
10.0%
4.7%
2.8%
2.6%
2.1%
10.3%
3.3%
Yes
59.3%
60.0% 51.9% 63.3% 61.7%
60.1%
50.0%
65.6%
i. Hispanic/Latino
No
34.1%
28.6% 38.7% 32.3% 33.7%
*
36.4%
34.9%
27.2%
***
Don’t Know
6.6%
11.4%
9.4%
4.4%
4.7%
3.5%
15.1%
7.3%
Yes
26.8%
20.0% 19.9% 30.2% 32.0%
29.1%
17.8%
28.5%
j. Native American/
No
59.3%
54.3% 61.1% 60.3% 58.2% ***
61.9%
57.5%
54.3%
***
American Indian
Don’t Know
13.9%
25.7% 19.0%
9.5%
9.8%
9.1%
24.7%
17.2%
Yes
96.4%
92.8% 95.7% 96.8% 97.9%
97.2%
94.5%
96.0%
k. White/Caucasian (nonNo
1.0%
1.4%
1.0%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
0.7%
0.7%
Hispanic/non-Latino)
Don’t Know
2.6%
5.8%
3.3%
2.4%
1.0%
1.6%
4.8%
3.4%
Yes
53.4%
51.4% 47.9% 52.4% 61.5%
53.4%
42.1%
64.0%
l. Biracial/multiracial
No
22.6%
20.0% 25.1% 23.4% 19.8%
23.8%
23.4%
18.7%
***
Don’t Know
24.0%
28.6% 27.0% 24.2% 18.7%
22.8%
34.5%
17.3%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
g. African American/
Black/Black other
21
Table 7a: Attendance at Events Where Various Groups May Not Feel Welcome
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 24. Have you ever attended University of Iowa-affiliated events where you believe the following groups would not feel welcome?
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
pvalue 1
Yes
6.9%
6.7%
8.6%
7.1%
5.7%
7.8%
6.3%
No
75.2%
77.5%
59.1%
***
76.5%
68.9%
73.2% 76.6%
Don’t Know
17.9%
15.8%
32.3%
16.3%
25.4%
19.0% 17.0%
Yes
6.9%
6.0%
12.9%
5.6%
13.1%
5.4%
8.0%
b. Persons from countries
No
82.1%
84.3%
66.7%
***
83.6%
74.6%
**
80.3% 83.2%
*
other than the U.S.
Don’t Know
11.0%
9.6%
20.4%
10.7%
12.3%
14.2%
8.8%
Yes
10.6%
10.4%
10.8%
10.2%
12.3%
10.8% 10.5%
c. Persons from particular
No
76.2%
78.6%
60.2%
***
77.9%
68.0%
*
72.5% 78.6%
religious backgrounds
Don’t Know
13.2%
10.9%
29.0%
11.9%
19.7%
16.6% 10.9%
Yes
8.7%
8.5%
10.9%
9.0%
7.4%
10.2%
7.6%
d. Persons with a disability No
76.7%
78.0%
67.4%
77.0%
75.4%
71.5% 80.5%
*
Don’t Know
14.5%
13.5%
21.7%
14.0%
17.2%
18.3% 12.0%
Yes
9.6%
8.0%
20.7%
8.7%
14.0%
10.5%
9.0%
e. Persons from particular
No
77.5%
79.9%
60.9%
***
78.9%
71.1%
72.9% 80.7%
*
racial / ethnic
backgrounds
Don’t Know
12.9%
12.1%
18.5%
12.4%
14.9%
16.6% 10.3%
Yes
20.1%
20.2%
18.3%
21.1%
15.6%
24.4% 16.7%
f. Persons from particular
No
67.5%
68.6%
61.3%
*
67.6%
67.2%
62.0% 71.6%
*
political backgrounds
Don’t Know
12.4%
11.2%
20.4%
11.4%
17.2%
13.6% 11.7%
Yes
8.6%
8.5%
9.7%
8.7%
8.2%
8.2%
9.0%
g. Persons of a particular
No
78.5%
80.0%
67.7%
**
79.0%
76.2%
75.2% 80.7%
*
age
Don’t Know
12.9%
11.5%
22.6%
12.3%
15.6%
16.7% 10.2%
Yes
10.7%
10.8%
9.7%
11.6%
6.6%
15.6%
7.1%
h. Women
No
78.8%
80.7%
66.7%
***
79.5%
75.4%
**
70.7% 84.6% ***
Don’t Know
10.5%
8.5%
23.7%
8.9%
18.0%
13.6%
8.3%
Yes
11.2%
11.5%
8.7%
12.5%
5.0%
12.3% 10.2%
i. Men
No
77.7%
79.1%
68.5%
***
78.2%
75.2%
***
73.7% 80.5%
Don’t Know
11.2%
9.5%
22.8%
9.4%
19.8%
14.0%
9.3%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
a. Gay, lesbian, bisexual or
transgender persons
22
Table 7b: Attendance at Events Where Various Groups May Not Feel Welcome
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 24. Have you ever attended University of Iowa-affiliated events where you believe the following groups would not feel welcome?
Overall
Percent
Age (in Years)
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
Tenure Status
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
Yes
6.9%
6.0%
6.9%
7.3%
6.9%
5.9%
7.9%
9.0%
No
75.2%
74.6% 75.0% 77.0% 73.0%
77.2%
72.7%
71.7%
Don’t Know
17.9%
19.4% 18.1% 15.7% 20.1%
16.9%
19.4%
19.3%
Yes
6.9%
4.5%
9.4%
6.9%
5.3%
5.2%
9.4%
9.7%
b. Persons from countries
No
82.1%
77.6% 79.3% 83.1% 85.2%
85.4%
77.7%
76.6%
other than the U.S.
Don’t Know
11.0%
17.9% 11.3% 10.1%
9.5%
9.4%
12.9%
13.8%
Yes
10.6%
3.0%
9.8% 13.3% 10.6%
10.8%
9.4%
11.0%
c. Persons from particular
No
76.2%
77.6% 76.5% 74.6% 77.8%
77.9%
74.1%
73.1%
religious backgrounds
Don’t Know
13.2%
19.4% 13.7% 12.1% 11.6%
11.3%
16.5%
15.9%
Yes
8.7%
3.0% 11.8%
8.9%
7.4%
8.5%
6.5%
11.7%
d. Persons with a
No
76.7%
78.8% 74.5% 77.0% 77.8%
78.1%
75.5%
73.8%
disability
Don’t Know
14.5%
18.2% 13.7% 14.1% 14.8%
13.4%
18.0%
14.5%
9.6%
4.5% 11.3%
9.3% 10.1%
8.7%
10.1%
11.7%
e. Persons from particular Yes
No
77.5%
73.1% 75.9% 79.8% 77.7%
79.7%
73.4%
75.2%
racial / ethnic
backgrounds
Don’t Know
12.9%
22.4% 12.8% 10.9% 12.2%
11.6%
16.5%
13.1%
Yes
20.1%
13.4% 19.6% 23.4% 18.4%
20.7%
17.3%
20.7%
f. Persons from particular
No
67.5%
70.1% 67.6% 64.9% 70.0%
68.8%
65.5%
66.2%
political backgrounds
Don’t Know
12.4%
16.4% 12.7% 11.7% 11.6%
10.6%
17.3%
13.1%
Yes
8.6%
6.2%
7.4%
8.9% 10.6%
9.4%
6.6%
8.3%
g. Persons of a particular
No
78.5%
78.5% 78.4% 78.6% 78.3%
79.5%
77.4%
76.6%
age
Don’t Know
12.9%
15.4% 14.2% 12.5% 11.1%
11.1%
16.1%
15.2%
Yes
10.7%
3.0%
9.9% 12.5% 11.7%
11.6%
7.2%
11.7%
h. Women
No
78.8%
82.1% 78.3% 77.8% 79.8%
80.2%
77.5%
75.9%
Don’t Know
10.5%
14.9% 11.8%
9.7%
8.5%
8.3%
15.2%
12.4%
Yes
11.2%
3.0% 11.3% 13.0% 11.7%
12.8%
7.9%
9.7%
i. Men
No
77.7%
83.6% 75.9% 76.5% 78.7%
78.5%
77.0%
75.7%
Don’t Know
11.2%
13.4% 12.8% 10.5%
9.6%
8.7%
15.1%
14.6%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
a. Gay, lesbian, bisexual
or transgender persons
23
The next questions on the survey asked about respondents’ perceptions of racial/ethnic
diversity at The University of Iowa (Tables 6a and 6b, Question 16g-l, pages 20-21),
specifically, whether the environment is diverse enough to provide sufficient opportunities to
interact with people who are African American/Black, Asian American/Asian,
Hispanic/Latino, Native American/American Indian, White/Caucasian, and biracial/
multiracial. Response categories were yes, no, and don’t know. As shown in Figure 3 (page
17), for the six items, the percentage of respondents who selected yes ranged from 26.8%
(Native American/American Indian) to 96.4% (White/Caucasian). There were significant
differences based on the respondent’s racial/ethnic group status for four of the six items, with
majority respondents more likely to reply yes and minority respondents more likely to reply
no or don’t know. Differences based on citizenship status were significant for five of the six
items; in general, U.S.-born respondents were more likely to reply yes and non-U.S.-born
respondents more likely to reply no or don’t know. For three of the six items, males were
significantly more likely to reply yes and females more likely to reply no or don’t know. In
general, older respondents were more likely to reply yes and younger respondents more likely
to reply no or don’t know, with significant differences for four of the items. Differences
based on tenure status were significant for five of the six items; non-tenure track respondents
were more likely to reply yes to four of the items and tenured respondents were more likely to
reply yes to one item, while non-tenured tenure track respondents were more likely to reply
no or don’t know to these items.
Tables 7a and 7b (Question 24a-i, pages 22-23) and Figure 4 (page 25) present the results of a
nine-part question asking respondents whether they had ever attended university-affiliated
events where they believed various groups would not feel welcome (e.g., persons from
particular economic backgrounds, persons from particular religious backgrounds, persons
with a disability), with response options of yes, no, or don’t know. Overall, most respondents
answered no to each of the nine questions, and for many of the questions, more respondents
selected don’t know than yes. Of the nine groups specified in this set of survey items, the
group whom the highest percentage of respondents said would not feel welcome at an event
was persons from particular political backgrounds (20.1%), while the groups the fewest
respondents said would not feel welcome at an event were gay, lesbian, bisexual or
transgender (GLBT) persons (6.9%) and persons from countries other than the U.S. (6.9%).
Differences based on racial/ethnic group status were significant for all of the items except for
persons with a disability; for many of the items minority respondents were more likely to
reply yes (i.e., they had attended events where persons from particular groups would not feel
welcome) or don’t know and majority respondents were more likely to reply no. Exceptions
to this pattern were the items about persons from particular political backgrounds, women,
and men, with minorities more likely to reply don’t know to these items. Non-U.S.-born
respondents were significantly more likely to reply yes or don’t know that they had attended
events where persons from countries other than the U.S. and persons from particular religious
backgrounds would not feel welcome, and were more likely to reply don’t know to the
questions about men and women not feeling welcome at events, than were U.S.-born
respondents. Differences based on gender were significant for six of the nine items; in
general, female respondents were more likely to reply yes or don’t know and male
respondents were more likely to reply no. None of the differences based on age group or
tenure statues were statistically significant.
24
Figure 4: Overall Responses to Question 24,
“Have You Ever Attended University of Iowa-Affiliated Events Where You Believe the
Following Groups Would Not Feel Welcome?”
25%
20%
15%
Yes
10%
5%
0%
l
y
c
T
us
ca
i es
ni
li t
o
i
B
r
i
i
h
t
t
b
i
t
g
n
l
e
GL
isa
eli
ou
Po
al/
c
i
R
D
c
r
he
Ra
Ot
e
Ag
en
om
W
en
M
In their qualitative comments, several respondents described issues of access, equity, or
inclusion for members of particular groups on campus, including racial or ethnic minorities,
women, people with disabilities, people with mental illnesses, and former members of the
military. Some respondents wrote that diversity of thought, expression, political viewpoints,
or religious beliefs were not well-tolerated.
…. While colleagues have appeared to be supportive of me, I have not been offered
support on my research or invited to be involved in a way that would matter with
others' research projects…. I believe that type of support from within my program
would communicate that I am valued…. I have experienced what feels like sabotage
and non-support from my colleagues that has been both subtle and overt as well as
very negative. I feel very certain that this is ethnically and racially based….. [T]hat
side of my experience is what makes me question whether or not I belong or want to
stay at Iowa.
The percentage of tenured women at the assistant, associate and full professor levels
has gone down in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. I am concerned about
gender equity and subtle barriers to women scholars. Bright women graduate
students in my department do not seem to have models for commitment to a career of
scholarship.
…. I think the UI community is an excellent, welcoming place for women, gays and
lesbians...but maybe much more so if they/we are white. I think it is likely a much
harder place to thrive for persons of color, international students and faculty, and
even for non-traditional (i.e. older) undergraduate students….
25
When I tried to hire someone from a different ethnic and religious background once,
one administrator said to my face I should 'buy American”…. [I]t does bring up the
point that bias has to be guarded against actively. Overall, I would discourage
anyone from coming to this university.
…. There certainly is no effort to intentionally hire or support people with physical or
mental disabilities, and accommodations are hard to get without engendering
resentment and marginalization. Ignorance about all kinds of disabilities is profound.
During searches, it is not uncommon to hear people discuss a candidate's disabilities
as a reason not to hire them or appoint them to particular activities…. Invisible
disabilities are a special problem--people don't believe they exist….
For me diversity categories should include and be understood to be intellectual,
cultural and expressive as well as racial, gender and preferences of sexuality. Being
from an east coast Jewish heritage it has been my experience at Iowa that the rules of
engagement do not easily tolerate regional, cultural and stylistic differences. It is my
impression that our intellectual and expressive diversity suffers as a result.
The University is far too liberal. Conservatives have just learned how to function in
the environment and not complain. Students would be better served if presented with
BOTH sides of an issue. We need to stimulate critical thinking and not pander to
political correctness. The best educators are the ones that present the issue so well
you can not tell which 'side' they are on...if any! All too often students know what side
of the issue a teacher is on (usually liberal), and they just write papers and test
responses that will get them a good grade, and not voice their opinions….
There appears to be discrimination against atheism on campus. People associated
with diversity committees, etc. are VERY willing to distribute information on campus
organization sanctioned events on religious issues … but will not do it for speakers
questioning religion or supporting atheism.
.... It is my conviction that the very intellectual integrity of all our academic endeavors
is at stake in confronting the incipient and even explicit anti-religious bias that still
goes unchecked in many university settings…. [T]he 21st-century world in which we
live and work calls for intellectual inquiry and an intellectual environment in which
the disappearance, blatant irrationality or plain irrelevance of religious belief is no
longer an operating assumption….
My personal experiences at the University have been generally positive. However, in
the last few days, the eruption of hate expressed toward the female law professor who
is suggesting that the pink locker room at Kinnick promotes sexism and homophobia is
a stinging reminder that much more needs to be done to ensure a welcoming climate
for diversity on campus.
26
E. SURVEY AREA 1B: PERCEPTIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY
To explore respondents’ perceptions of the University’s commitment to diversity, the survey
asked about:
• Academic freedom on campus
• Leadership of the University President and top administrators in promoting
diversity
• Assessment of The University of Iowa’s diversity-related efforts in the previous
five years
Tables 8a and 8b and Figure 5 below (Question 21c, pages 28-29) show the results of a
question about respondents’ sense of academic freedom, using a 5-point scale where 1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree (the midpoint of 3 = neither agree nor disagree).
Overall, the mean response for the statement “The University provides an environment for the
free and open expression of ideas, opinions, and beliefs” was 3.87. There were no significant
differences among the subgroups examined.
Figure 5: Overall Responses to Question 21c,
“The University Provides and Environment for the Free and Open Expression of Ideas,
Opinions, and Beliefs”
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
10%
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
14%
Agree/
Strongly
Agr ee
76%
Question 21d (Tables 8a and 8b, pages 28-29) asked respondents about diversity leadership
by University administrators. On a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree (the midpoint of 3 = neither agree nor disagree), the overall mean response for
the statement “The University President and top administrators are visible leaders in
promoting diversity on campus” was 3.91. The difference based on racial/ethnic groups status
was not statistically significant; as illustrated in Figure 6 (page 30), differences among other
subgroups examined were statistically significant. U.S.-born respondents and males reported
a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement than did non-U.S.-born
respondents and females. The differenced based on age group was significant, with the level
of agreement increasing with each age group. Tenured respondents reported the highest level
and non-tenured tenure track respondents reported the lowest level of agreement with the
statement; this was also significant.
27
Table 8a: Perceptions of Institutional Commitment to Diversity
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 21. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
1= Strongly Disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4= Agree
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
c. The University provides an environment
for the free and open expression of ideas,
opinions, and beliefs
d. The University President and top
administrators are active leaders in
promoting diversity on campus
pvalue 1
5= Strongly Agree
Citizenship Status
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
3.87
3.90
3.70
3.88
3.84
3.91
3.94
3.73
3.96
3.70
Gender
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
**
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
3.84
3.90
3.75
4.02
pvalue 1
***
Q 35. Rate The University of Iowa’s efforts, during the last five years, in the following areas:
1= Poor
2= Fair
3= Average
4= Good
5= Excellent
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Mean
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Gender
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
pvalue 1
Diversifying the curriculum
3.50
3.53
3.30
3.55
3.25
*
3.38
3.58
*
Diversifying the faculty
3.07
3.09
2.91
3.06
3.11
2.74
3.29
***
Diversifying the student body
3.10
3.10
3.08
3.09
3.16
2.83
3.28
***
Diversifying the staff
2.89
2.93
2.62
2.90
2.85
2.55
3.11
***
Offering opportunities for cross-cultural
3.42
3.48
2.97
**
3.48
3.12
*
3.38
3.46
skill development
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
28
Table 8b: Perceptions of Institutional Commitment to Diversity
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 21. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
1= Strongly Disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4= Agree
Overall
c. The University provides an environment
for the free and open expression of ideas,
opinions, and beliefs
d. The University President and top
administrators are active leaders in
promoting diversity on campus
5= Strongly Agree
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
3.87
3.96
3.86
3.79
3.97
3.91
3.61
3.74
3.97
4.13
pTenured
value 1 Mean
***
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
3.89
3.95
3.75
4.00
3.66
3.90
***
Q 35. Rate The University of Iowa’s efforts, during the last five years, in the following areas:
1= Poor
2= Fair
3= Average
4= Good
5= Excellent
Overall
Mean
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Age (in Years)
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
Tenure Status
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
Diversifying the curriculum
3.50
3.54
3.40
3.52
3.56
3.42
3.59
3.67
Diversifying the faculty
3.07
3.11
2.99
3.07
3.16
3.03
3.17
3.11
Diversifying the student body
3.10
3.06
3.07
3.09
3.15
3.07
3.04
3.24
Diversifying the staff
2.89
3.04
2.87
2.86
2.94
2.82
2.99
3.04
Offering opportunities for cross-cultural
3.42
3.34
3.36
3.47
3.44
3.39
3.42
3.53
skill development
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
29
Figure 6: Statistically Significant Differences for Question 21d,
“The University President and Top Administrators Are Active Leaders in Promoting
Diversity on Campus”
Mean Response
4.3
4.1
3.9
3.7
O
ve
ra
ll
U
S
N
on bor
-U n
Sbo
r
Fe n
m
al
e
M
26
-3 ale
5
36 year
-4
s
5
y
4 6 ea
rs
-5
5
ye
56 ars
+
ye
ar
s
N
on Ten
-te ur
ed
n.
,
t
N
on en.
-te t rk
nu
re
trk
3.5
Scale: 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree
A series of items (Tables 8a and 8b, Question 35a-e, pages 28-29) asked respondents to rate
the University’s diversity-related efforts in the last five years, 7 using a five-point scale
where 1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = average, 4 = good, and 5 = excellent. As illustrated in Figure 7
(page 31), the means for the five items ranged from 2.89 (diversifying the staff) to 3.50
(diversifying the curriculum). Racial/ethnic majority respondents rated the University’s
efforts in offering opportunities for cross-cultural skill development significantly higher than
did minority respondents; none of the other differences based on racial/ethnic group status
were statistically significant. U.S.-born respondents rated efforts in diversifying the
curriculum and offering cross-cultural skill development opportunities significantly higher
than did non-U.S.-born respondents. Differences based on gender were significant for four of
the five items, with males rating the University’s efforts higher than did females. None of the
differences based on age group or tenure status were statistically significant.
7
The survey was distributed in Fall 2005.
30
Figure 7: Overall Responses to Question 35,
“Rate the University’s Efforts, During the Last Five Years, in the Following Areas”
Mean Response
5
4
3
2
de
v.
f
ra
l
sk
ill
sta
f
Di
v
Cr
os
s-c
ul
tu
stu
de
nt
er
sif
yi
ng
Di
v
er
sif
yi
ng
bo
dy
ul
ty
fa
c
er
sif
yi
ng
Di
v
Di
v
er
sif
yi
ng
cu
r ri
cu
lu
m
1
Scale: 1=Poor to 5=Excellent
In their qualitative comments regarding the University’s commitment to diversity, some
respondents described the challenges that they perceived facing the institution’s diversity
efforts, including geographic location, competition with other institutions, and funding issues.
Some felt that diversity efforts and resources could be better coordinated among campus
units, while others expressed a sense of competition among programs for resources to support
diversity efforts. Some respondents commented that, while the institutional commitment was
good, the environment within their own colleges or departments was not. Others noted a lack
of institutional sensitivity to the religious holidays of some religious groups. Some
respondents expressed hope for more commitment to diversity in the future, while others
expressed a sense that diversity is overemphasized at the University.
The University of Iowa is doing a great job dealing with the traditional goals of
diversity in the US. Although we try in our department to hire women we are not as
successful as we would like to be, because the competition is currently so high for
women candidates. This will change in the next few years because at the present time
approximately half the PhDs in my field are awarded to women, and we just need to
wait until these people are far enough out of graduate school that they can flourish in
the relatively isolated environment of the University of Iowa. The University has
completely fallen down when it comes to incorporating Asians into the higher levels of
administration….
The UI has done an excellent job of trying to encourage diversity. We have a major
drawback in that we are in a geographically homogenous location that makes these
efforts difficult. We are also in competition with a number of other institutions that
are trying to accomplish the same goal. I think the UI has made important strides and
they have made these strides in a difficult environment.
31
My poor evaluation of University efforts to diversify is directly tied to the impact
which financial cut-backs have had on such diversity efforts. In that context, even the
current diversity efforts of the provost's office, as laudable as they are, are really too
little.
I believe that the University Administration is sincere about the efforts to diversify.
There are many barriers to success in this area and I am often frustrated that we can
not or do not progress more rapidly. I would like to see more coordination and
sharing of the activities that address cultural competence and support of a racially
and culturally diverse campus.
There seems to be a lack of coordinated diversity efforts between colleges.
I see minimal efforts in some programs to recruit a diverse student body. The
University may be doing great things in some departments, but others do not have the
money to promote this. The discrepancy seems to be a problem.
It seems that some academic units offering courses attractive to students in 'diversity'
categories and enriching the experiences of majority-group students have not received
financial or general institutional support over an extended period of time (e.g.,
African American Studies, Asian and Asian American Languages &
Literature/Culture, Latino/Latina Studies). The enormous amount of support provided
to International Studies Programs has appeared to be at the expense of the health of
programs focused on the cultures of the most prominent groups in multicultural
America.
I am concerned that the effort to diversify the faculty will be solely in the area of
African-American studies and will neglect all the other departments in the College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences.
…. While I think many UI administrators are active promoters of diversity, my own
DEO is not, in any substantive way….
…. I think the official University efforts to promote diversity are good. The challenge
is the unofficial interactions of faculty and administrators. In the unofficial processes
(and sometimes subtly in official ones at the department level), I see women faculty
being taken advantage and/or undervalued. I don't know if this happens to minorities
because frankly there are so few of them that I don't have personal experience one
way or the other.
I strongly support our concern for increasing the diversity of our institution and for
making it comfortable for a wider range of people to flourish here…. But virtually
every year there is an occasion in which university or college activities are scheduled
on Rosh Hashonah or even Yom Kippur, which displays, I think, a real lack of
sensitivity and marks Jews as people to whom attention need not be paid….
I hope this survey really serves to do something and not just to make believe the
university community that university administrators are concerned about diversity on
campus.
32
The emphasis on diversity at this campus is extreme to the degree that it is destructive.
We need to relax and just be who we are.
F. SURVEY AREA 2A: QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTS
OF
EXPERIENCE
IN
LIVING, LEARNING,
AND
WORKING
To explore issues of quality of campus life, the survey queried respondents about:
• Impact of interactions with people from different backgrounds and racial/ethnic
groups on teaching
• Level of respect accorded to respondents’ ideas and opinions by departmental
colleagues
• Classroom behaviors that can contribute to an inclusive learning environment
• Overall satisfaction with faculty experience at The University of Iowa
• Characteristics of the colleague at The University of Iowa who had the most
positive impact on the respondent’s professional development and ways in which
this colleague had a positive impact
Overall, 79.5% of respondents reported that their teaching was enriched by interactions
with people from a variety of backgrounds and racial/ethnic groups at The University of
Iowa (Tables 9a and 9b, Question 18, pages 34-35; Figure 8 below). The differences based on
the respondents’ racial/ethnic group status and citizenship status were not statistically
significant. Females were significantly more likely than males to report that these interactions
had enriched their teaching. Differences based on age group were not significant. Non-tenure
track respondents were more likely than tenured and non-tenured tenure track respondents to
report that their teaching had been enriched by interactions with a variety of people.
Figure 8: Overall Responses to Question 18,
“Have Your Interactions at The University of Iowa with Persons from a Variety of
Backgrounds and Racial/Ethnic Groups Enriched Your Teaching?”
No
21%
Yes
79%
33
Table 9a: Interactions at The University of Iowa and Overall Satisfaction with Faculty Experience
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 18. Have your interactions at The University of Iowa with persons from the groups listed above in Question 17 enriched your teaching?
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Yes
No
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
79.5%
20.5%
80.0%
20.0%
76.7%
23.3%
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
80.1%
19.9%
76.3%
23.7%
Q 21. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
1= Strongly Disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4= Agree
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
b. Most of my colleagues in my department
are respectful of my ideas and opinions
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
pvalue 1
4.13
4.16
3.92
*
Q 29. How often do you do the following in your classroom?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
Male
Percent
pvalue 1
85.1%
14.9%
75.8%
24.2%
**
5= Strongly Agree
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
4.15
3.99
Gender
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
4.09
4.15
pvalue 1
5= Very Frequently
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
a. Greet students or talk informally with
them before or after class
b. Use inclusive language (language that
does not stereotype or demean)
Gender
Female
Percent
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
4.35
4.36
4.31
4.38
4.56
4.58
4.45
4.59
Gender
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
pvalue 1
4.22
4.49
4.26
***
4.42
4.64
4.50
**
Q 34. During the last five years, how satisfied have you been with your overall faculty experiences at The University of Iowa?
1= Very Dissatisfied
2= Dissatisfied
3= Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied
4= Satisfied
5= Very Satisfied
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Mean
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Gender
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
pvalue 1
3.85
3.88
3.67
3.88
3.70
3.81
3.89
*** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
34
Table 9b: Interactions at The University of Iowa and Overall Satisfaction with Faculty Experience
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 18. Have your interactions at The University of Iowa with persons from the groups listed above in Question 17 enriched your teaching?
Overall
Yes
No
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Percent
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
79.5%
20.5%
74.6%
25.4%
79.2%
20.8%
80.2%
19.8%
80.9%
19.1%
77.3%
22.7%
Q 21. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
1= Strongly Disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neither Agree Nor Disagree
4= Agree
Overall
b. Most of my colleagues in my department
are respectful of my ideas and opinions
a. Greet students or talk informally with them
before or after class
b. Use inclusive language (language that does
not stereotype or demean)
77.5%
22.5%
87.8%
12.2%
*
Tenure Status
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
4.13
4.24
4.07
4.08
4.20
Overall
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
5= Strongly Agree
Age (in Years)
26-35
Mean
Q 29. How often do you do the following in your classroom?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
pTenured
value 1 Mean
4.13
TT, Non-Ten
Mean
4.19
Non-Ten Trk
pMean
value 1
4.05
5= Very Frequently
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
4.35
4.31
4.24
4.47
4.34
4.56
4.50
4.52
4.64
4.52
pTenured
value 1 Mean
*
TT, Non-Ten
Mean
Non-Ten Trk
pMean
value 1
4.38
4.32
4.33
4.58
4.52
4.55
Q 34. During the last five years, how satisfied have you been with your overall faculty experiences at The University of Iowa?
1= Very Dissatisfied
2= Dissatisfied
3= Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied
4= Satisfied
5= Very Satisfied
Overall
Mean
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01
Age (in Years)
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
Tenure Status
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten
Mean
Non-Ten Trk
pMean
value 1
3.85
3.90
3.85
3.73
4.01
3.84
3.92
3.82
*** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
35
Question 21b (Tables 9a and 9b, pages 34-35) asked respondents to indicate the extent of their
agreement that most of their colleagues in their departments are respectful of their ideas
and opinions, using a 5-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree (the
midpoint of 3 = neither agree nor disagree). The overall mean was 4.13. Racial/ethnic
majority respondents reported a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement;
none of the other differences among the subgroups examined were statistically significant.
Tables 9a and 9b (Question 29a-b, pages 34-35) show the results of two questions about the
frequency of respondents’ classroom behaviors that may contribute to an inclusive
learning environment, using a 5-point scale where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 =
frequently, and 5 = very frequently. The overall mean response for the first item, greeting
students or talking informally with them before or after class, was 4.35. Females reported
doing so significantly more frequently than did males. Respondents who were 46-55 years
old reported doing so most frequently and the 36-45 year-old group reported doing so least
frequently; this difference was also significant. Differences based on other subgroups were
not statistically significant for this item. The overall mean response for the second item, using
inclusive language (language that does not stereotype or demean) was 4.56. Females reported
using inclusive language in their classrooms significantly more frequently than did males;
none of the other differences among the subgroups examined were statistically significant.
Tables 9a and 9b (Question 34, pages 34-35) and Figure 9 below show respondents’ overall
satisfaction with their faculty experiences at The University of Iowa during the previous
five years, using a 5-point scale where 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied (the
midpoint of 3 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied). Overall, the mean response was 3.85.
None of the differences in the responses of the subgroups examined were statistically
significant.
Figure 9: Overall Responses to Question 34,
“During the Last Five Years, How Satisfied Have You Been with Your Overall Faculty
Experiences at The University of Iowa?”
Dissatisfied/
Very
Dissatisfied
13%
Neither
13%
Satisfied/
Very
Satisfied
74%
36
Question 30 asked respondents whether at least one colleague at The University of Iowa
had positively impacted their professional development. Tables 10a and 10b (pages 3839) show the results. Overall, 92.6% of respondents reported that at least one colleague had
positively impacted their professional development; there were no significant differences
among any of the subgroups examined. Respondents who reported that at least one colleague
had had such an impact were asked a series of questions about the colleague who had had the
most positive impact; overall, 97.8% said the colleague was a faculty member, and 86.1%
reported that the colleague was White/Caucasian (Tables 10a and 10b, Questions 31 and 32,
pages 38-39), with no significant differences for these two items among any of the subgroups
examined.
Tables 10a and 10b (Question 33a-e, pages 38-39) present the ways these colleagues
positively impacted respondents’ professional development. Respondents selected all
applicable options from a list of six items, and were also able to write in additional ways in
which the colleagues had positively impacted their professional development. As shown in
Figure 10 below, overall percentages for the six items ranged from 30.4% (supported my
involvement in service activities) to 68.7% (supported my career advancement). There were
no statistically significant differences based on racial/ethnic group status or citizenship status.
The only significant difference based on gender was that females more frequently wrote in
specific, individual responses beyond those provided in the survey. The percentage of
respondents who selected “was enthusiastic about my research program” decreased as age
group increased, and respondents in the three younger age groups were more likely to select
“supported my career advancement” than were respondents in the 56+ year-old group; these
differences were statistically significant. There were significant differences based on tenure
status for four of the items. Non-tenure track respondents were more likely to select “affected
the quality of my classroom teaching” and “supported my involvement in service activities”
and were less likely to select “was enthusiastic about my research program” than were their
counterparts, and non-tenured tenure track respondents were more likely to select “got me
involved in a research project.”
Figure 10: Overall Responses to Question 33,
“How Did This Colleague Have a Positive Impact on Your Professional Development?”
75%
65%
55%
45%
35%
po
Se
rt
rv
vi
ce
ac
tiv
Ca
iti
es
re
er
ad
va
nc
em
en
t
A
dm
in
.s
up
re
se
ar
ch
in
to
/r e
se
ar
ch
G
ot
m
e
ia
sm
En
th
us
Q
ua
lit
y
of
te
ac
hi
ng
25%
Respondents selected all answers that applied.
37
Table 10a: Characteristics of Colleagues Who Have Had a Positive Impact
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 30. Has there been at least one colleague at The University of Iowa who has had a positive impact on your professional development?
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Yes
No
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
92.6%
7.4%
92.4%
7.6%
95.6%
4.4%
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
93.1%
6.9%
90.8%
9.2%
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
94.1%
5.9%
91.8%
8.2%
pvalue 1
Q 31. Think of the one colleague who has had the most positive impact on you. Was this colleague:
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Faculty member
Other
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
97.8%
2.2%
97.6%
2.4%
98.9%
1.1%
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
97.5%
2.5%
99.1%
0.9%
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
97.7%
2.3%
97.8%
2.2%
pvalue 1
Q 32. What was the race/ethnicity of this colleague?
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
White/Caucasian
Other race/ethnicity
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
86.1%
13.9%
87.2%
12.8%
80.0%
20.0%
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
86.7%
13.3%
83.2%
16.8%
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
85.1%
14.9%
87.1%
12.9%
pvalue 1
Q 33. How did this colleague have a positive impact on your professional development? Select all that apply.
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
pvalue 1
a. Affected the quality of my classroom
38.5%
39.7%
29.9%
39.8%
32.4%
39.0% 38.5%
teaching
b. Was enthusiastic about my research
65.1%
64.3%
70.1%
63.7%
72.2%
61.0% 68.1%
program
c. Got me involved in a research project
33.4%
33.1%
35.6%
33.5%
33.3%
34.2% 33.2%
d. Provided administrative support
41.7%
41.1%
46.0%
41.2%
44.4%
40.1% 43.0%
e. Supported my involvement in service
30.4%
31.0%
27.6%
30.4%
30.6%
30.9% 30.0%
activities
f. Supported my career advancement
68.7%
69.6%
65.5%
70.3%
61.1%
69.5% 68.5%
g. Other
6.7%
6.7%
5.7%
7.4%
2.8%
9.6%
4.6%
*
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
38
Table 10b: Characteristics of Colleagues Who Have Had a Positive Impact
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 30. Has there been at least one colleague at The University of Iowa who has had a positive impact on your professional development?
Overall
Yes
No
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Percent
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
92.6%
7.4%
95.4%
4.6%
92.8%
7.2%
92.3%
7.7%
92.1%
7.9%
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
91.2%
8.8%
94.2%
5.8%
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
95.7%
4.3%
Q 31. Think of the one colleague who has had the most positive impact on you. Was this colleague:
Overall
Faculty member
Other
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Percent
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
97.8%
2.2%
100.0%
0.0%
98.3%
1.7%
98.6%
1.4%
95.3%
4.7%
Percent
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
86.1%
13.9%
91.5%
8.5%
83.1%
16.9%
86.4%
13.6%
86.9%
13.1%
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
97.1%
2.9%
99.2%
0.8%
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
98.5%
1.5%
Q 32. What was the race/ethnicity of this colleague?
Overall
White/Caucasian
Other race/ethnicity
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
86.9%
13.1%
80.3%
19.7%
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
89.3%
10.7%
Q 33. How did this colleague have a positive impact on your professional development? Select all that apply.
Overall
Percent
Age (in Years)
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
Tenure Status
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
a. Affected the quality of my classroom
38.5%
43.5% 39.4% 36.8% 38.5%
35.2%
36.4%
50.4%
**
teaching
b. Was enthusiastic about my research
65.1%
75.8% 70.6% 65.6% 55.2%
**
70.7%
82.9%
32.3%
***
program
c. Got me involved in a research project
33.4%
41.9% 38.3% 31.6% 27.6%
30.3%
45.7%
30.8%
**
d. Provided administrative support
41.7%
29.0% 38.9% 44.9% 45.4%
43.7%
32.6%
45.1%
e. Supported my involvement in service
30.4%
22.6% 26.7% 36.6% 29.3%
29.1%
22.5%
42.1%
**
activities
f. Supported my career advancement
68.7%
72.6% 75.0% 70.2% 59.2%
**
68.1%
69.0%
70.7%
g. Other
6.7%
6.5%
7.2%
6.2%
6.9%
7.9%
4.7%
5.3%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
39
Some respondents’ qualitative comments addressing aspects of their living, learning, and
working environments at The University of Iowa noted a lack of depth to social and
professional interactions on campus, while others described deliberate failures to collaborate
or active disrespect.
We have become so furiously devoted to a kind of empty professionalism that we don't
have time/energy left for humanism…. I think that the President and the Provost are
very well motivated and even effective but I don't think their basic humanity, which is
real, filters down very far.
I believe the problem isn't the numbers, it’s more the integration of people….
…. I have struggled to develop substantive social connections here on campus,
although I have a lot of superficial acquaintances. I also think that the culture of the
campus re: diversity too often reflects the culture of Iowa re: diversity (e.g., wellintentioned but ignorant and inexperienced)--a fact that strikes me as odd, since most
people on campus are not from Iowa. I notice a tendency to define people in terms of
rigid categories and simplistic identifiers (like skin color or sexual orientation), for
example, rather than the sensibilities and skills of genuine tolerance and
inclusiveness. I've also noticed people here being very active about some dimensions
of diversity (race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation) but then seeming to be quite
ignorant of others (class, gender, etc.). Part of the problem may be that social
interactions tend to be quite superficial here, which is not necessarily conducive to
non-stereotyped ways of interacting.
…. My major disappointment is the widening gap between the administrative
leadership and the faculty. I consider myself lucky to have found a mentor to guide me
in research activities. For many years at The University of Iowa, no such mentorship
was available and it was clear that this was not a concern of those in leadership
positions. Instead, persons who had research activities kept those opportunities and
resources for themselves. The other faculty were expected to do the daily work. My
impression is that this situation has not changed over the twenty years which I have
been a faculty member.
One issue … which has had a major impact on my satisfaction with the climate at the
University is the undertreatment of adjunct faculty - I have been good friends with a
number of adjuncts in my time here, and every one has faced serious barriers in
obtaining *basic* levels of material, financial, and emotional support (or even human
courtesy). Many of them have already left, and some UI faculty who are spouses or
otherwise attached have left as well.
40
G. SURVEY AREA 2B: LEVELS
OFFICES, AND RESOURCES
OF
USE AND ENGAGEMENT IN A VARIETY
OF
ACTIVITIES,
To explore issues of engagement in activities, offices, and resources, the survey asked about:
• Participation in organized University activities
• Participation in student-related services and activities
Respondents were asked about the frequency of their involvement in various types of
organized activities at The University of Iowa (Tables 11a and 11b, Question 15a-e, pages
42-43), using a 5-point scale where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5
= very frequently. As shown in Figure 11 below, the overall mean responses to the five items
ranged from 2.33 for athletic events to 3.25 for artistic and musical performances and
activities. The differences for two items were significant based on racial/ethnic group status,
with majority respondents reporting more frequent attendance at athletic and artistic/musical
events. All of the differences based on citizenship status were significant, with U.S.-born
respondents reporting more frequent involvement than non-U.S.-born respondents. Males
reported more frequent attendance in athletic events and females reported more frequent
involvement with cultural programs; these differences were significant. Differences based on
age group were significant for all five of the items, with participation increasing with age
group. All of the differences based on tenure status were significant; for each item, the nontenured tenure track respondents reported the lowest frequency of involvement. Non-tenure
track respondents reported the most frequent participation in athletic events and volunteer
activities, and tenured respondents reported the most frequent involvement with cultural
programs, artistic/musical performances, and campus-wide committees.
Figure 11: Overall Responses to Question 15,
Frequency of Participation in Organized University Activities
Mean Response
5
4
3
2
1
c
et i
hl
t
A
en
ev
ts
p
al
Cu
r
ltu
ram
g
ro
s
ts
Ar
/m
ic
us
r
ee
nt
u
l
Vo
C
s-w
u
p
am
Scale: 1=Never to 5=Very Frequently
41
id
om
ec
m
ee
itt
s
Table 11a: Participation in Organized Activities and Student-Related Services
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 15. To what extent have you attended or been involved in the following organized activities at The University of Iowa?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
a. UI athletic events
b. Cultural programs (e.g., race, ethnicity,
nationality, sexual identity, disability)
c. Artistic and musical performances and
activities
d. Volunteer work, on or off campus
e. Campus-wide committees
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
Mean
pvalue 1
2.33
2.38
1.98
***
2.37
2.33
2.56
3.25
3.31
2.93
2.72
2.51
2.74
2.50
2.57
2.51
**
Citizenship Status
Gender
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
pvalue 1
2.41
1.92
***
2.18
2.43
**
2.41
2.13
**
2.48
2.29
**
3.30
3.01
**
3.26
3.25
2.81
2.56
2.30
2.28
***
*
2.77
2.52
2.69
2.51
Q 23. Have you interacted with or participated in the following student-related services or activities?
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Percent
Majority
Percent
Minority
Percent
pvalue 1
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pPercent
Percent
value 1
Gender
Female
Percent
Male
Percent
pvalue 1
Yes
42.1%
42.8%
36.2%
43.5%
35.5%
41.4% 42.5%
No
57.9%
57.2%
63.8%
56.5%
64.5%
58.6% 57.5%
Yes
35.4%
34.8%
37.6%
37.2%
26.8%
36.4% 34.5%
b. Co-curricular student
*
initiatives
No
64.6%
65.2%
62.4%
62.8%
73.2%
63.6% 65.5%
Yes
66.6%
68.7%
51.1%
69.4%
53.2%
65.0% 67.6%
c. Recruitment/admission of
***
***
new/transferring students
No
33.4%
31.3%
48.9%
30.6%
46.8%
35.0% 32.4%
Yes
37.7%
36.7%
42.6%
38.2%
35.5%
35.2% 39.2%
d. Faculty advisement of a
student organization
No
62.3%
63.3%
57.4%
61.8%
64.5%
64.8% 60.8%
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
a. Academic support services
42
Table 11b: Participation in Organized Activities and Student-Related Services
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 15. To what extent have you attended or been involved in the following organized activities at The University of Iowa?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall
a. UI athletic events
b. Cultural programs (e.g., race, ethnicity,
nationality, sexual identity, disability)
c. Artistic and musical performances and
activities
d. Volunteer work, on or off campus
e. Campus-wide committees
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten
Mean
Non-Ten Trk
pMean
value 1
2.33
2.13
2.20
2.29
2.59
***
2.34
1.98
2.63
***
2.37
1.91
2.26
2.38
2.63
***
2.44
2.13
2.36
**
3.25
2.69
3.04
3.24
3.69
***
3.40
2.89
3.17
***
2.72
2.51
2.19
1.65
2.60
2.22
2.83
2.77
2.90
2.77
***
***
2.76
2.84
2.43
1.87
2.87
2.17
**
***
Q 23. Have you interacted with or participated in the following student-related services or activities?
Overall
Percent
a. Academic support
services
b. Co-curricular student
initiatives
c. Recruitment/admission of
new/transferring students
d. Faculty advisement of a
student organization
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01
Age (in Years)
26-35
Percent
36-45
Percent
46-55
Percent
56+
pTenured
Percent value 1 Percent
Tenure Status
TT, Non-Ten
Percent
Non-Ten Trk
pPercent
value 1
Yes
42.1%
23.5% 30.6% 44.6% 58.0%
47.5%
27.5%
40.1%
***
***
No
57.9%
76.5% 69.4% 55.4% 42.0%
52.5%
72.5%
59.9%
Yes
35.4%
20.9% 32.7% 38.9% 38.7%
43.9%
22.9%
22.4%
*
***
No
64.6%
79.1% 67.3% 61.1% 61.3%
56.1%
77.1%
77.6%
Yes
66.6%
51.5% 62.9% 69.5% 71.7%
73.2%
62.0%
51.4%
**
***
No
33.4%
48.5% 37.1% 30.5% 28.3%
26.8%
38.0%
48.6%
Yes
37.7%
32.8% 29.6% 43.1% 41.1%
42.0%
26.2%
36.1%
*
**
No
62.3%
67.2% 70.4% 56.9% 58.9%
58.0%
73.8%
63.9%
*** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
43
Tables 11a and 11b (Question 23a-d, pages 42-43) present the results of a series of questions
asking whether respondents had interacted with or participated in various student-related
services or activities. As illustrated in Figure 12 below, the overall percentages of
respondents who reported that they had been involved in the specified services or activities
ranged from 35.4% for co-curricular student initiatives (e.g., Women in Science and
Engineering, Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professorate, Opportunity at Iowa) to
66.6% for recruitment or admission of new or transferring students. The difference based on
racial/ethnic group status was significant for one item, with majority respondents more likely
to report that they had been involved in the recruitment/admission of new/transferring
students. U.S.-born citizens were significantly more likely to report having been involved in
co-curricular student initiatives and recruitment/admission. None of the gender-based
differences were statistically significant. All of the differences based on age group were
significant; in general, respondents in older age groups were more likely to report
participation in student-related services and activities than were respondents in younger age
groups. All of the differences based on tenure status were also significant, with tenured
respondents more likely to report participation in these activities and services.
Figure 12: Overall Responses to Question 23,
Participation in Student-Related Services or Activities
80%
60%
Yes
40%
20%
t
A
m
de
a
c
ic
r
po
p
su
C
cu
o-
la
cu
i
r
r
es
iti
v
cti
ra
ru
ec
itm
R
o
ssi
i
dm
t/ a
n
e
n
s
vi
Ad
f
to
n
e
em
or
n
t io
a
z
ni
ga
In their qualitative comments that addressed use of and engagement in activities, offices, and
resources, some respondents described being too busy with teaching, clinical, or paperwork
responsibilities to be involved in other types of activities.
….The atmosphere has significantly deteriorated over the last 10 years. University
has become far more concerned with 'numbers' and quantity rather than quality. Time
for research and meaningful intellectual interaction with students and colleagues is
sacrificed to meaningless clerical tasks and paperwork.
…. We are so busy seeing patients that we have time for little else. Most lectures are
held smack in the middle of our clinics, making it impossible for most to go.
Sabbaticals do not seem to be encouraged.
44
H. SURVEY AREA 2C:
EFFORTS
LEVEL
OF
FACULTY PARTICIPATION
IN
DIVERSITY-RELATED
To explore levels of participation in diversity-related efforts at The University of Iowa, the
survey queried respondents about:
• Participation in diversity training or workshops
• Incorporation of the needs of diverse groups into professional practice
• Incorporation of concerns of diverse groups into course curricula
• Presentation of course materials in a cultural context
Question 25d (Tables 12a and 12b, pages 46-47) asked respondents to indicate the frequency
with which they had conducted or participated in diversity training or workshops in the
previous three years, using a 5-point scale where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 =
frequently, and 5 = very frequently. Figure 13 below illustrates the overall results by
response category; the overall mean response was 1.98. The differences based on
racial/ethnic groups status and citizenship status were not statistically significant. Females
reported participating in diversity training or workshops significantly more frequently than
did males. Differences based on age group were not significant. Non-tenure track
respondents reported participating most frequently and non-tenured tenure track respondents
reported least frequently in diversity training or workshops; this difference was statistically
significant.
Figure 13: Overall Responses to Question 25d,
Frequency of Participation in Diversity Training or Workshops
Not
Applicable
10%
Very
Frequently
Frequently
3%
6%
Sometimes
21%
Never
43%
Rarely
17%
45
Table 12a: Participation in Diversity-Related Efforts
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 25. In the past three years, how often have you done each of the following at The University of Iowa?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
d. Conducted or participated in diversity
training or workshops
e. Incorporated the unique needs of diverse
groups into your professional practice
(e.g., clinical care)
Minority
pMean
value 1
Citizenship Status
Gender
Mean
Majority
Mean
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
pvalue 1
1.98
1.97
2.07
2.01
1.80
2.14
1.87
**
2.99
2.96
3.12
3.04
2.68
3.29
2.76
***
Q 26. In the last three years, what portion of the courses for which you have had primary curriculum development responsibilities at The
University of Iowa have incorporated the culture, history, health, or social concerns of diverse groups into the coursework?
1= None
2= A Few
3= Some
4= Most
5= All
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Mean
Majority
Mean
3.16
3.13
Minority
pMean
value 1
3.39
Q 29. How often do you do the following in your classroom?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
pMean
value 1
Citizenship Status
Gender
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
3.23
2.74
*
Female
Mean
3.64
Male
Mean
2.78
pvalue 1
***
5= Very Frequently
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Gender
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
3.50
pvalue 1
c. Present material in a cultural context
3.75
3.74
3.82
3.80
3.43
*
4.10
***
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
46
Table 12b: Participation in Diversity-Related Efforts
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 25. In the past three years, how often have you done each of the following at The University of Iowa?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall
d. Conducted or participated in diversity
training or workshops
e. Incorporated the unique needs of diverse
groups into your professional practice (e.g.,
clinical care)
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
1.98
1.94
1.87
2.13
1.92
1.95
1.78
2.27
**
2.99
2.63
2.90
3.12
2.99
2.87
2.98
3.25
*
Q 26. In the last three years, what portion of the courses for which you have had primary curriculum development responsibilities at The
University of Iowa have incorporated the culture, history, health, or social concerns of diverse groups into the coursework?
1= None
2= A Few
3= Some
4= Most
5= All
Overall
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
3.16
2.69
3.00
3.29
3.31
Q 29. How often do you do the following in your classroom?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
Overall
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
*
3.10
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
3.29
3.25
5= Very Frequently
Age (in Years)
26-35
Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
Tenure Status
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
c. Present material in a cultural context
3.75
3.76
3.58
3.76
3.91
3.74
3.72
3.81
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
47
Respondents were also asked to indicate the frequency with which they had incorporated the
needs of diverse groups into professional practice (e.g., clinical care) in the previous three
years, using a 5-point scale where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5
= very frequently (Question 25e, Tables 12a and 12b, pages 46-47). The overall mean
response was 2.99. The differences based on racial/ethnic groups status and citizenship status
were not statistically significant. Females reported incorporating diverse groups’ needs into
their professional practice more frequently than did males. Differences based on age group
were not significant. Non-tenure track respondents reported most frequently and tenured
respondents reported least frequently incorporating diverse groups’ needs into professional
practice; this difference was statistically significant.
Tables 12a and 12b (Question 26, pages 46-47) present the results of a question asking
respondents what portion of the courses for which they had had primary curriculum
development responsibility in the previous three years had incorporated the culture, history,
health, or social concerns of diverse groups into coursework, using a 5-point scale where 1
= none, 2 = a few, 3 = some, 4 = most, and 5 = all. The overall mean response was 3.16. The
difference in responses of racial/ethnic majority and minority respondents was not significant.
U.S.-born and female respondents reported that a significantly higher portion of their courses
had incorporated the concerns of diverse groups than did non-U.S.-born and male
respondents. As respondents’ age group increased, so did the portion of courses which
incorporated these concerns; this difference was significant. Differences based on tenure
status were not statistically significant.
Question 29c (Tables 12a and 12b, pages 46-47, and Figure 14 below) asked respondents
about the frequency with which they presented material in a cultural context in their
classrooms, using a 5-point scale where 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently,
and 5 = very frequently. The overall mean response was 3.75. Differences based on
racial/ethnic group status were not significant. U.S.-born respondents and females reported
presenting classroom material in a cultural context significantly more frequently than did nonU.S.-born and male respondents. The differences based on age group and tenure status were
not significant.
Figure 14: Overall Responses to Question 29c,
“How Often Do You Present Material in a Cultural Context in Your Classroom?”
Don't Know
10%
Rarely Never
16%
Frequently Very
Frequently
56%
Sometimes
18%
48
In their qualitative comments regarding participation in diversity-related efforts, some
respondents reported a lack of such offerings by their departments. Some expressed that they
and/or their students did not feel diversity concerns were relevant to their course material,
while others described embedding diversity issues within their teaching.
…. [O]ne question asks how frequently the respondent has attended diversity trainings
or workshops--but that is a function of how often they are offered! In the six years
that I have been here, our department has never held a diversity training….
….I deal with health professional students who are overwhelmed with information and
solely want to know what they have to know to pass the exam. On PowerPoint slides
that already distill information into knowledgeable bits, they want to know which of
the bits they need to know. My job is to communicate effectively and to expose
students at all levels to the opportunities that await them and to instill confidence in
their abilities; diversity does not 'enrich' my teaching.
I do primarily clinical teaching (not classroom) and my topic is geriatric--its own
culture etc, wonderfully diverse; I try to bring a sense of that to all my interactions
with patients and students.
I. SURVEY AREA 3A: LEVEL OF EXPOSURE
DIVERSE FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENTS
TO
DIVERSITY COURSES/PROGRAMS
AND TO
To explore levels of exposure to diversity at The University of Iowa, the survey queried
respondents about:
• Interaction with people from various backgrounds
• Participation in University of Iowa symposia or conferences which incorporated
diverse perspectives into content
• Participation in symposia or conferences outside of The University of Iowa which
incorporated diverse perspectives into content
Question 17 (Tables 13a and 13b, pages 50-51) asked respondents to describe their frequency
of interactions with people from various backgrounds, using a 5-point scale where 1 =
never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = very frequently. There were twelve
different groups included in this series of questions: people who are from different countries,
politically conservative, politically liberal, from different sexual identity groups, from
different religious backgrounds, have physical and/or mental disabilities; and from various
racial/ethnic groups. The overall means for these twelve items, as illustrated in Figure 15
(page 52), ranged from 2.24 (interaction with Native Americans/American Indians) to 4.82
(interaction with Whites/Caucasians). Racial/ethnic majority respondents tended to report
interacting more frequently than did minority respondents with people from various
backgrounds; the differences were statistically significant for four of the twelve items. U.S.born respondents reported significantly more frequent interactions with people from nine of
the twelve groups. The results based on respondents’ gender were mixed, with significant
differences observed for five of the twelve items. The differences based on the respondents’
age group were significant for eight of the items; although the results were somewhat mixed,
in general, respondents from the two older age groups (46-55 years old and 56 years or older)
49
Table 13a: Frequency of Interactions with People from Various Backgrounds
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 17. How frequently do you interact with people at The University of Iowa who are:
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
pMean
value 1
a.
b.
c.
d.
Citizenship Status
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Gender
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
4.29
3.36
4.38
pvalue 1
From a different country
4.23
4.25
4.10
4.22
4.26
4.14
*
Politically conservative
3.30
3.32
3.16
3.33
3.14
3.22
Politically liberal
4.41
4.45
4.11
***
4.47
4.09
***
4.45
From a sexual identity group different
3.56
3.71
3.74
3.40
*
3.80
3.16
***
3.90
***
from your own
e. From a religious background different
4.24
4.23
4.25
4.12
4.26
4.09
4.22
from your own
f. Persons with a physical and/or mental
3.09
3.10
3.12
2.91
3.18
2.70
***
3.10
disability
3.32
g. African American/ Black/Black other
3.29
3.30
3.15
3.34
3.02
**
3.23
3.99
h. Asian American/ Asian
3.93
3.97
3.67
**
3.98
3.71
*
3.84
*
3.38
i. Hispanic/Latino
3.32
3.33
3.22
3.36
3.12
*
3.22
*
2.28
j. Native American/ American Indian
2.24
2.24
2.13
2.30
1.95
***
2.16
k. White/Caucasian (non-Hispanic/
4.78
4.82
4.85
4.66
*
4.85
4.70
*
4.89
**
non-Latino)
3.27
l. Biracial/multiracial
3.25
3.27
3.03
3.31
2.97
**
3.21
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
50
Table 13b: Frequency of Interactions with People from Various Backgrounds
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 17. How frequently do you interact with people at The University of Iowa who are:
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall
Mean
Age (in Years)
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
a.
b.
c.
d.
46-55
Mean
Tenure Status
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
From a different country
4.23
4.06
4.20
4.29
4.23
4.32
4.03
4.14
***
Politically conservative
3.30
3.21
3.34
3.35
3.23
3.27
3.18
3.54
**
Politically liberal
4.41
4.40
4.48
4.43
4.31
4.42
4.47
4.32
From a sexual identity group different from
3.71
3.59
3.64
3.79
3.71
3.72
3.65
3.71
your own
e. From a religious background different
4.23
4.12
4.12
4.36
4.24
*
4.27
4.20
4.15
from your own
f. Persons with a physical and/or mental
3.10
2.67
3.09
3.10
3.24
**
3.12
2.91
3.21
*
disability
g. African American/ Black/Black other
3.29
3.04
3.12
3.37
3.45
***
3.38
2.94
3.36
***
h. Asian American/ Asian
3.93
3.65
3.81
4.05
4.02
**
4.04
3.69
3.85
***
i. Hispanic/Latino
3.32
3.14
3.12
3.44
3.46
***
3.40
3.06
3.35
**
j. Native American/ American Indian
2.24
1.77
2.11
2.35
2.37
***
2.31
1.99
2.24
**
k. White/Caucasian (non-Hispanic/
4.82
4.88
4.83
4.87
4.73
*
4.81
4.88
4.81
non-Latino)
l. Biracial/multiracial
3.25
2.87
3.19
3.35
3.30
*
3.29
3.16
3.21
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
51
tended to report more frequent interactions with people from various backgrounds than did
respondents from the younger age groups. The differences based on the respondents’ tenure
status were significant for seven of the items; the pattern of results was again somewhat
mixed, but in general, non-tenured tenure track respondents tended to report less frequent
interactions with people from various groups than did their tenured and non-tenure track
counterparts.
Figure 15: Overall Responses to Question 17,
Frequency of Interaction at the University with People from Various Backgrounds
Mean Response
5
4
3
2
1
tr
un
ff.
Di
co
y
r
se
n
Co
e
tiv
va
.
r.
.
.
y
.
.
l
ra l id. gion bilit mer mer mer mer mer me
e
a
i
b
A
Li exu . rel disa an A a n A ic A ve A te A ial
s
e
ac
ff
hi
ic Asi pa n ati
ff.
Di Hav Afr
W ultir
s
i
N
i
D
H
/M
Bi
Scale: 1=Never to 5=Very Frequently
The survey asked respondents how often they had attended symposia or conferences at The
University of Iowa that incorporated diverse perspectives into the content of the sessions
(Tables 14a and 14b, Question 27, page 53), using a 4-point scale where 1 = 0 times, 2 = 1-2
times, 3 = 3-4 times, and 4 = 5+ times. Overall, the mean was 2.10. Differences in responses
based on racial/ethnic group status, age group, and tenure status were not significant. U.S.born and female respondents reported significantly more participation in such symposia or
conferences.
Respondents were also asked how often they had attended symposia or conferences outside
of The University that incorporated diverse perspectives into the content of the sessions
(Tables 14a and 14b, Question 28, page 53), using a 4-point scale where 1 = 0 times, 2 = 1-2
times, 3 = 3-4 times, and 4 = 5+ times. Overall, the mean was 2.13. Differences in responses
based on racial/ethnic group status, age group, and tenure status were not significant. U.S.born and female respondents reported significantly more participation in such symposia or
conferences than did non-U.S.-born and male respondents.
52
Table 14a: Participation in Diversity-Related Conferences and Symposia
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 27. In the last three years, how often have you attended symposia or conferences at The University of Iowa that have incorporated the
culture, history, health, or social concerns of diverse groups?
1= 0 Times
2= 1-2 Times
3= 3-4 Times
4= 5 + Times
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Citizenship Status
Gender
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
pMean
value 1
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
1.96
pvalue 1
Male
Mean
1.92
pvalue 1
2.10
2.10
2.06
2.17
1.75
***
2.30
Q 28. In the last three years, how often have you attended symposia or conferences outside of The University of Iowa that have
incorporated the culture, history, health, or social concerns of diverse groups?
1= 0 Times
2= 1-2 Times
3= 3-4 Times
4= 5 + Times
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Citizenship Status
Gender
Mean
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01
Majority
Mean
Minority
pMean
value 1
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Female
Mean
***
2.13
2.14
2.02
2.17
1.88
**
2.42
***
*** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
Table 14b: Participation in Diversity-Related Conferences and Symposia
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 27. In the last three years, how often have you attended symposia or conferences at The University of Iowa that have incorporated the
culture, history, health, or social concerns of diverse groups?
1= 0 Times
2= 1-2 Times
3= 3-4 Times
4= 5 + Times
Overall
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
2.10
1.83
2.06
2.17
2.15
2.15
1.94
2.09
Q 28. In the last three years, how often have you attended symposia or conferences outside of The University of Iowa that have incorporated
the culture, history, health, or social concerns of diverse groups?
1= 0 Times
2= 1-2 Times
3= 3-4 Times
4= 5 + Times
Overall
Age (in Years)
Tenure Status
Mean
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
2.13
1.97
2.13
2.21
2.07
2.13
2.19
2.06
*** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
53
Respondents whose qualitative comments addressed exposure to diverse courses, programs,
and people tended to note a lack of diversity among the faculty and/or student bodies. Some
commented that The University of Iowa is more diverse than the State of Iowa, and some
expressed that, although their local campus environments were diverse, more diversity could
be achieved.
There was not one African American among the incoming College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences faculty this year and appeared to be one or two Latinos at most. The
recruitment and retention of both faculty and students of color is of great concern to
me.
I do not know how to define ‘frequently.’ Yes, I have daily interaction with nonCaucasian faculty and students – -all one or two of them. That's different than
'frequently' as if I were in an environment of 30% non-Caucasian--so what is
frequently? And, if I were that one or two, I would not define it as 'frequent' ….[T]he
experiences are really shaped by the specific individuals’ personalities; not a critical
mass to base global judgments on.
There is still a problem in the relatively small number of minority faculty. A little
progress has been made, but surprisingly little, in the past 30 years.
I was greatly surprised to find that the classes I teach do NOT have the student
diversity I expected.
... [N]one of my students belongs to any of the diverse groups specified.
Compared to the State of Iowa, there is incredible diversity in Iowa City and at The
University of Iowa. I would estimate that the diversity is well beyond the knowledge
of, or the experience of most Iowans. While it perhaps isn't everything it could be as
compared to other parts of the country it is certainly well beyond the norms of the
state in which we are located.
I work in an unusually diverse department. When I say 'sufficient' I do not mean I
would not welcome more. I have benefitted with associations with white, Latino and
African-American colleagues, as well as gay and lesbian colleagues…. We can
always do more.
54
J. SURVEY AREA 3B:
DIVERSITY
HOW MUCH
AND
WHAT FACULTY HAVE LEARNED ABOUT
To explore respondents’ knowledge of and insight into diversity, the survey queried
respondents about:
• Research or writing focused on diversity
• Incorporation of diverse perspectives into curriculum
• Presentations on diversity
Tables 15a and 15b (Question 25a, page 56) present respondents’ indication of their research
or writing focused on diversity in the previous three years, based on a 5-point scale of 1 =
never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = very frequently. Overall, the mean
was 2.06 (Figure 16 below). There were no significant differences by citizenship status and
age group. Racial/ethnic minority respondents, females, tenure-track non-tenured faculty
were more significantly engaged in research or writing focused on diversity issues.
In Question 25b (Tables 15a and 15b, page 56), the overall mean was 2.21, based on a 5-point
scale of 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = frequently, and 5 = very frequently. The
overall mean was 2.21 (Figure 16 below). There were no significant differences in
curriculum development activities by racial/ethnic group status and citizenship status.
Females, 56+ year old respondents, and non-tenure track respondents reported significantly
more participation in curriculum development activities designed to integrate diverse
perspectives into courses.
Question 25c (Tables 15a and 15b, page 56) presents respondents’ report of their diversity
presentations based on a 5-point scale of 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 =
frequently, and 5 = very frequently. Overall, the mean was 1.92 (Figure 16 below).
Racial/ethnic minority respondents, U.S.-born, and females reported giving significantly more
presentations on diversity issues. There were no significant differences by age group or
tenure status.
Figure 16: Overall Responses to Questions 25a-c,
Inclusion of Diversity in Academic Activities
Mean Response
5
4
3
2
1
Conducted research or
writing on diversity issues
Curriculum development
incorporating diverse
perspectives
Scale: 1=Never to 5=Very Frequently
55
Given presentations on
diversity issues
Table 15a: Inclusion of Diversity in Academic Activities
Overall and by Racial/Ethnic Group Status, Citizenship Status, and Gender
Q 25. In the past three years, how often have you done each of the following at The University of Iowa?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall Racial/Ethnic Group Status
Mean
Majority
Mean
Minority
pMean
value 1
Citizenship Status
Gender
US-born Non-US-born pMean
Mean
value 1
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
pvalue 1
a. Conducted research or writing focused on
1.85
2.06
1.96
2.76
***
2.05
2.10
2.36
***
diversity issues
b. Participated in a faculty curriculum
2.00
development activity designed to integrate
2.21
2.17
2.46
2.24
2.06
2.50
***
diverse perspectives into courses
1.73
c. Given presentations on diversity issues
1.92
1.87
2.35
*
1.97
1.66
*
2.19
***
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.
Table 15b: Inclusion of Diversity in Academic Activities
Overall and by Age Group and Tenure Status
Q 25. In the past three years, how often have you done each of the following at The University of Iowa?
1= Never
2= Rarely
3= Sometimes
4= Frequently
5= Very Frequently
Overall
Mean
Age (in Years)
26-35
Mean
36-45
Mean
46-55
Mean
Tenure Status
56+
Mean
pTenured
value 1 Mean
TT, Non-Ten Non-Ten Trk
pMean
Mean
value 1
a. Conducted research or writing focused on
2.06
1.60
2.03
2.13
2.11
2.14
2.26
1.59
***
diversity issues
b. Participated in a faculty curriculum
development activity designed to integrate
2.21
1.86
2.07
2.29
2.37
*
2.21
1.96
2.45
*
diverse perspectives into courses
c. Given presentations on diversity issues
1.92
1.60
1.80
2.04
1.99
1.97
1.76
1.93
1
* p ≤ .05
** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001. The lack of an asterisk indicates that differences among subgroups are not statistically significant.
56
In their qualitative comments regarding what they have learned about diversity, some
respondents said they would like more resources for teaching about diversity and for making
professional and cultural connections with other members of the campus community. Others
commented that student recruitment is essential to creating a diverse learning environment
now and diverse faculty in the future.
…. Many of us have previously taught in more diverse settings, and I think it would
help if UI provided more resources for teaching students who have very limited
experience with cultural diversity.
…. It would be helpful to have more than one presentation during faculty orientation
for minority incoming faculty and staff in terms of the challenges of teaching about
diversity in the UI classrooms, professional networks, possible colleagues who
already do significant work in the area, and/or human resources for the sake of
professional satisfaction and general cultural adjustment to the university and Iowa as
a whole…. [W]hat constitutes 'sufficient' relates to issues of opportunity/presence…as
well as facility (e.g., are there established avenues available through which I can talk
to other faculty of color about pedagogical, intellectual, and professional issues
related to being a diversity hire or a minority faculty member or do I have to invent
them myself in addition to learning about the university, teaching, research, etc.?)….
It's Iowa…. You have to be realistic in diversity goals. But there is a growing
Hispanic population that we should reach out to and get these young kids to come to
UI, ISU, and UNI. Look to California for that model. (I grew up in CA and studied
and taught in very diversified higher education places. It is great and really helps the
class experience.) Also, there is an underserved small black population in Iowa.
Really ignored in my opinion. We need to reach out to them in middle and high
schools. Speaking to them. We can say 'Yes, they can go to college and not be a jock!'
and it may be the first time they hear or think that.
You should spend more time trying to recruit a diverse group of students into graduate
school so we can actually have a diverse faculty….
K. ADDITIONAL QUALITATIVE ANALYSES
One-hundred and forty-three (18.1%) of the 792 respondents offered comments in response to
the final, open-ended survey item asking for comments about the survey or information not
covered by the survey questions. Comments addressing the topical areas of the survey were
discussed with the relevant survey areas previously in this chapter.
General patterns in the comments reinforced findings from the quantitative analyses.
Concerns in the following areas were noted.
• An underlying tone of ethnic and racial discrimination
• Strained relationships of colleagues within departments
• Isolation of many faculty of color
• A lack of depth to professional and social interactions
57
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
An overwhelming burden of responsibilities that preclude engagement
Questioning of the utility of diversity-related efforts and its relevance to certain
disciplines or professions, especially within the curriculum and the teaching and
learning process
A need for more resources for teaching about diversity
A desire for additional mechanisms for making professional and cultural connections
to foster a diverse learning environment
The existence of more diversity than is widely acknowledged at The University of
Iowa and in Iowa City
Mixed perceptions of the success of the University’s diversity efforts
Identification of hurdles in making diversity progress, ranging from group identity to
systemic application of policies
Concerns about administrative follow-through
Inclusion of diverse political perspectives
Accessibility of the campus to individuals with disabilities
Salary equity
Questions of priorities and resources
Additional issues beyond the original scope of the survey that were raised by respondents in
their written comments are noted below.
…. My job satisfaction has been diminished over the past five years by the realization
that the Iowa legislature does not value The University of Iowa.
There has been a lack of guidance in the everyday … basic procedures (e.g., copy
codes, signing out rooms, location of offices, etc)…. I have not been provided with
any orientation materials from the administration of my school. Without the help of
my fellow faculty, I would be very lost. My colleagues who have been here for years
all relay similar stories of bewilderment during their first years here.
I think there is growing resentment about the salary and perk discrepancies between
white faculty with some longevity at the University, and faculty of color who have been
recently hired. In addition, DEOs -- desperate to diversify their faculty -- have used
the post-doctoral fellowship programs (designed to develop future faculty of color)
into some lame excuse to keep on mediocre doctoral students and turn them into fulltime faculty. It's a real problem and is affecting the community of faculty and
scholars.
…. Where is there a question on this survey that takes up poverty, plights of lower
classes--which include many of our students--and why has the category of 'class,' once
so powerful a device for analyzing societies, simply disappeared--replaced by the
misnomer, 'diversity?' Why should a 'diversity' candidate who comes from a well off
family be favored over a 'white' candidate who does not but must scramble to make it
here--and stay? … I have to admit the idea of a body politic defined as a 'citizenry',
rather than one claiming 'diversity' is far more appealing. 'Diversity', however,
attempts to celebrate differences over commonalities; and there is no modern
democracy that will be able to remain steady without a focus on the 'common weal.'
58
The U of I has cast its lot with a business model for education, where students have
become consumers reflecting the same predilection for the superficial and
convenience over substantive. Diversity in an academic setting is better served by
real inclusion as opposed to yet another 'alliance for XXX' club approach. If the real
goal of the U. becomes quality scholarship, and that is the measure of the University
community, all who participate will come out better able to make real strides outside
the University.
59
60
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Findings are summarized for each of the survey areas identified in the project’s charge.
Quantitative survey items were analyzed for the overall respondent group and for subgroups
based on racial/ethnic group status (majority or minority), citizenship status (U.S.-born or
non-U.S.-born), gender (male or female), age group (26-35 years old, 36-45 years old, 46-55
years old, or 56 years old and older), and tenure status (tenured, tenure track but not tenured,
or non-tenure track). Differences among subgroups are considered statistically significant if
they achieve a confidence level of at least 95% (i.e., p-value of .05).
1. Survey Area 1a: Perceptions of Access, Equity and Inclusion (pages13-26)
Questions addressing this survey area focused on respondents’ sense of connection with other
members of the campus community, perceived attitudes of their colleagues, socializing with
colleagues outside of the work environment, sense of belonging at The University of Iowa,
perception of diversity of backgrounds and race/ethnicity at the University, and attendance at
events where particular groups of people would not feel welcome.
Taken together, the results of these survey items suggested that racial/ethnic minority, nonU.S.-born, female, and older respondents report less access, equity, and inclusion than have
majority, U.S.-born, male, and younger respondents.
Positive Trends
• Overall, respondents reported relative ease in most of the survey’s measures of
connecting with other members of the University community. (Question 19, pages
13-15)
• 86% of respondents overall reported that they felt as though they belong at The
University of Iowa. (Question 20, pages 16 and 18-19)
• The majority of respondents overall (70%) agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement “Most of my colleagues are supportive of the University’s affirmative
action policy.” (Question 21e, pages 13-15)
• A majority of respondents (ranging from 71-92% for six survey items) reported
that The University of Iowa environment was diverse enough to provide sufficient
opportunities to interact with people who are from a different country, politically
conservative, politically liberal, from a different sexual identity group, from a
different religious group, and persons with a physical or mental disability.
(Question 16a-f, pages 17-19)
Areas for Improvement
• There were differences among many of the subgroups in their responses to several
of the survey items addressing ease in connecting with other members of the
University community, with racial/ethnic minority, non-U.S.-born, female, and
younger respondents tending to report less ease. (Question 19a-f, pages 13-15)
61
•
•
•
When asked if they felt as though they belonged at The University of Iowa,
racial/ethnic minority respondents were more likely than majority respondents to
respond no. (Question 20, pages 16 and 18-19)
Racial/ethnic minority, non-U.S.-born, and female respondents were less likely to
agree with the statement “Most of my colleagues are supportive of the University’s
affirmative action policy.” (Question 21e, pages 13-15)
Racial/ethnic minority, non-U.S.-born, and younger respondents were more likely
to respond no or don’t know when asked whether The University of Iowa
environment was diverse enough to provide sufficient opportunities to interact
with people who are from a different country, politically conservative, politically
liberal, from a different sexual identity group, from a different religious group, and
persons with a physical or mental disability. (Question 16a-f, pages 17-19)
2. Survey Area 1b: Perceptions of Institutional Commitment to Diversity (pages 27-33)
This survey area asked questions related to respondents’ perception of the state of academic
freedom on campus, the University administration’s visibility as diversity leaders, and the
University’s diversity-related efforts in the previous five years.
Some significant differences were noted based upon race/ethnicity, citizenship status, gender,
age and tenure status indicating that minority, non-U.S.-born, female, younger and nontenured tenure track respondents perceived less institutional commitment to diversity than did
majority, U.S.-born, male, older and tenured respondents.
Positive Trends
• Overall, 76% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “The
University provides an environment for the free and open expression of ideas,
opinions, and beliefs.” There were no significant differences among the subgroups
examined. (Question 21c, pages 27-29)
• Overall, 71% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “The
University President and top administrators are active leaders in promoting
diversity on campus;” a total of 7% overall disagreed or strongly disagreed and
22% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. (Question 21d, pages 27-30)
Areas for Improvement
• Non-U.S.-born, female, younger, and non-tenured tenure track respondents
reported significantly lower levels of agreement with the statement regarding the
diversity leadership of top University administrators than did U.S.-born, male,
older, tenured and non-tenure track respondents. (Question 21d, pages 27-30)
• Overall, respondents rated the University’s efforts during the previous five years
with respect to diversifying the faculty, student body and staff as average.
(Question 35b-d, pages 28-31)
• Racial/ethnic minority and non-U.S.-born respondents rated the University’s
efforts during the previous five years at offering opportunities for cross-cultural
skill development significantly lower than did racial/ethnic majority and U.S.-born
respondents. (Question 35e, pages 28-31)
62
3.
Survey Area 2a: Quality of Experience in Living, Learning, and Working
Environments (pages 33-40)
Respondents were asked to evaluate the impact of interactions with people from different
backgrounds and racial/ethnic groups on teaching and the level of respect accorded to
respondents’ ideas and opinions by departmental colleagues. Respondents were also asked
about classroom behaviors that can contribute to an inclusive learning environment, their
overall satisfaction with their faculty experience at The University of Iowa, and the positive
effects of colleagues on their professional development.
In this survey area, there were relatively few statistically significant differences in the
responses across the subgroups examined.
Positive Trends
• Overall, 93% of respondents reported that at least one colleague had positively
impacted their professional development; there were no significant differences
among any of the subgroups examined. (Question 30, pages 37-39)
• Overall, 80% of respondents reported that their teaching was enriched by
interactions with people from a variety of backgrounds and racial/ethnic groups at
The University of Iowa. (Question 18, pages 33-35)
• Overall, 74% of respondents reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with
their overall faculty experiences at The University of Iowa. None of the
differences in the responses of the subgroups examined were statistically
significant. (Question 34, pages 34-36)
• Overall, 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “Most of
my colleagues in my department are respectful of my ideas and opinions.”
(Question 21b, pages 34-36)
• The majority of respondents reported frequently or very frequently engaging in
two classroom behaviors that may contribute to an inclusive learning environment:
using inclusive language (language that does not stereotype or demean) and
greeting students or talking informally with them before or after class. (Question
29a-b, pages 34-36)
Areas for Improvement
• Female and non-tenure track respondents were more likely than male, tenured, and
non-tenured tenure track respondents to report that their teaching was enriched by
interactions with people from a variety of backgrounds and racial/ethnic groups at
The University of Iowa. (Question 18, pages 33-35)
• Racial/ethnic majority respondents reported a significantly higher level of
agreement than minority respondents with the statement “Most of my colleagues in
my department are respectful of my ideas and opinions.” (Question 21b, pages 3436)
63
4. Survey Area 2b: Levels of Use and Engagement in a Variety of Activities, Offices and
Resources (pages 41-44)
This survey area examined respondents’ participation in organized University activities and
student-related services and activities.
Results of questions from this survey area suggested that race/ethnicity, citizenship status,
gender, age, and faculty track affected respondents’ level of use and engagement in activities,
offices, and resources.
Positive Trends
• Participation in student-related services or activities appears to increase with age
group and with tenure. (Question 23a-d, pages 42-44)
• Overall, 67% of respondents reported participating in the recruitment or admission
of new or transferring students. (Question 23c, pages 42-44)
Areas for Improvement
• Respondents overall reported relatively low levels of participation in a variety of
organized activities (University athletic events, cultural programs, artistic and
musical performances, volunteer activities, and campus-wide committees). There
were statistically significant differences among most of the subgroups examined,
with racial/ethnic minority, non-U.S.-born, younger, and non-tenured tenure track
respondents reporting lower levels of participation in these organized activities.
(Question 15a-e, pages 41-43)
• Younger respondents reported the lowest levels of participation in student-related
services or activities. (Question 23a-d, pages 42-44)
5. Survey Area 2c:
49)
Level of Faculty Participation in Diversity-Related Efforts (pages 45-
In this section, respondents were queried regarding their participation in diversity
training/workshops, incorporation of the needs and concerns of diverse groups into
professional practice and/or course curricula, and presentation of course materials in a cultural
context.
Results of questions from this survey area suggested relatively low levels of participation in
diversity-related efforts overall and by all of the subgroups examined.
Positive Trends
• More than half of the respondents (56%) reported that they frequently or very
frequently presented material in a cultural context in their classroom. (Question
29c, pages 46-48)
Areas for Improvement
• Overall, 60% of respondents reported rarely or never conducting or participating in
diversity training or workshops; 10% indicated that this survey item was not
applicable. (Question 25d, pages 45-47)
64
•
•
Overall, 27% of respondents reported that, of the courses for which they had
primary curriculum development responsibility, none or a few courses
incorporated the culture, history, health or social concerns of diverse groups; 26%
indicated that this survey item was not applicable. (Question 29e, pages 46-48)
Overall, 24% of respondents reported rarely or never incorporating the unique
needs of diverse groups into their professional practice; 29% indicated that this
survey item was not applicable. (Question 29d, pages 46-48)
6. Survey Area 3a: Level of Exposure to Diversity Courses/Programs and to Diverse
Faculty, Staff and Students (pages 49-54)
Questions in this survey area explored respondents’ interaction with people from various
backgrounds, participation in University of Iowa symposia or conferences which incorporated
diverse perspectives into content, and participation in symposia or conferences outside of The
University of Iowa which incorporated diverse perspectives into content.
Respondents reported mixed levels of interaction with people from diverse backgrounds and
relatively low levels of attendance at symposia or conferences which incorporate diverse
perspectives.
Positive Trends
• Overall, the majority of respondents reported interacting frequently or very
frequently at The University of Iowa with people who are from a different country,
politically liberal, from a sexual identity group different than their own, from a
different religious background, Asian American/Asian, or White/Caucasian.
(Question 17, pages 49-52)
• The majority of respondents reported interacting sometimes to very frequently
with people who are politically conservative, African American/Black,
Hispanic/Latino, biracial/multiracial, or have a physical and/or mental disability.
(Question 17, pages 49-52)
Areas for Improvement
• Overall, the majority of respondents reported interacting rarely or never with
Native Americans/American Indians at The University of Iowa (Question 17j,
pages 49-52)
• Non-U.S.-born, younger, and non-tenured tenure track respondents reported
significantly lower levels of interaction with persons from at least six of twelve
various backgrounds and racial/ethnic groups than did U.S.-born, older, and
tenured or non-tenure track respondents. (Question 17a-l, pages 49-52)
• Respondents were asked how many symposia or conferences they had attended in
the previous three years which incorporated the culture, history, health or social
concerns of diverse groups. Overall, 34% of respondents reported attending no
such events at The University of Iowa and 38% reported attending no such events
elsewhere. (Questions 27-28, pages 52-53)
65
7. Survey Area 3b: How Much and What Faculty Have Learned About Diversity (pages
55-57)
To explore respondents’ knowledge of and insight into diversity, the survey queried
respondents about three distinct activities: research or writing focused on diversity,
incorporation of diverse perspectives into the curriculum, and presentations on diversity. In
this portion of the survey, faculty respondents reported low levels of activities focused on
diversity issues or integration of diverse perspectives into the curriculum.
8. Additional Qualitative Analyses (pages 57-58)
One-hundred and forty-three (18.1%) of the 792 respondents replied to the open-ended survey
item asking for comments about the construction of the survey or information not covered by
the survey questions. General patterns in the respondents’ comments reinforced findings from
the quantitative analyses. Concerns in the following areas were noted.
• An underlying tone of ethnic and racial discrimination
• Strained relationships of colleagues within departments
• Isolation of many faculty of color
• A lack of depth to professional and social interactions
• An overwhelming burden of responsibilities that preclude engagement
• Questioning of the utility of diversity-related efforts and its relevance to certain
disciplines or professions, especially within the curriculum and the teaching and
learning process
• A need for more resources for teaching about diversity
• A desire for additional mechanisms for making professional and cultural
connections to foster a diverse learning environment
• The existence of more diversity than is widely acknowledged at The University of
Iowa and in Iowa City
• Mixed perceptions of the success of the University’s diversity efforts
• Identification of hurdles in making diversity progress, ranging from group identity
to systemic application of policies
• Concerns about administrative follow-through
• Inclusion of diverse political perspectives
• Accessibility of the campus to individuals with disabilities
• Salary equity
• Questions of priorities and resources
Additional issues raised in the respondents’ comments include a sense that the state legislature
does not value the University; a lack of guidance for new faculty in everyday procedures;
resentment about salary and perk discrepancies, questioning the substitution of diversity for
class as an analytical device for societies; and the value of a genuinely inclusive academic
environment.
66
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
We are mindful that the opinions of the survey respondents cannot be generalized to the entire
University of Iowa faculty; however, they do provide a snapshot of the respondents’
perceptions in the fall semester of 2005. Therefore, based on the survey results, we propose
that the University administration consider the following recommendations, in conjunction
with the goals and strategies of The Iowa Promise (2005) and the recommendations of several
other recent reports and surveys, such as the Diversity Action Committee Report (2006),
Sexual Harassment and Unwelcomed Behavior Survey Report (Clark, Hauserman, Persson, &
Washington-Hoagland, 2006), Working at IOWA Survey Results (2006), and The University of
Iowa First-Year Student Survey (2005).
Additional recommendations will emerge as we review the data from the final diversity
climate survey (i.e., of staff) and examine patterns of results across the undergraduate student,
graduate/professional student, faculty, and staff surveys. Furthermore, we encourage other
individuals and groups on campus to reflect upon the results of this survey and submit their
own recommendations for future action or further study.
Communication
1. Enhance demonstration of institutional commitment to diversity
In support of its strongly stated commitment to diversity in the University’s strategic
plan, The Iowa Promise, The University of Iowa administration has increased its
commitment to diversity in recent years with additional resources and personnel.
Despite the increased attention and resources, results from this survey indicated that
the institutional commitment to diversity was not very visible to faculty student
respondents.
We recommend that the administration explore how best to
communicate to faculty the institutional commitment to diversity in the educational
environment; likewise, collegiate leaders should examine ways to publicize their
commitment to diversity in their local educational and workplace environments.
2. Encourage dialogue with faculty in their respective colleges on the value of
diversity and inclusion in academia
Survey results, particularly comments offered in response to the open-ended question,
indicated that some faculty respondents do not share in the administration’s belief that
gender and racial diversity brings value to the academic environment. Given The
University of Iowa’s commitment to diversity and a similar commitment in the
colleges and professional schools, an enhanced effort by collegiate deans and central
administrative officials to encourage open and respectful dialogue with their faculty
colleagues on the rationale for attention to the topic of diversity and inclusion in
academia would be highly beneficial.
67
Student Engagement and Skill Development
3. Develop a critical mass of underrepresented students on campus
As called for in The Iowa Promise (2005), a diverse learning environment where a
critical mass of underrepresented students has been developed enhances the ability of
all students to challenge stereotypes, develop complex critical thinking skills, and
prepare to become citizens and leaders in an increasingly global economy.
4. Enhance opportunities for faculty to develop their students’ diversity skills and
incorporate cultural competency
Cultural competency is embedded in many collegiate programs at The University of
Iowa, such as the College of Education’s professional teaching requirements, the
Ethnic Inclusion in Engineering Project, and cultural competency initiatives across the
Carver College of Medicine and the Colleges of Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, and
Public Health. The Tippie College of Business recently initiated two one-credit
diversity courses.
We recommend that the Office of the Provost facilitate, promote, and continue to
support collegiate efforts to provide students with diversity skills and cultural
competencies related to their fields of study. Colleges with more advanced programs
should be encouraged to share their best practices with others.
5. Provide diversity educational opportunities for students, and the faculty and staff
who interact with them, within their colleges/units
Social and demographic changes are leading to an increasingly diverse student body at
both the undergraduate and graduate/professional levels. Several survey respondents
spoke to the need for increased educational opportunities on the topic of diversity and
inclusion in their colleges in order to promote a more supportive environment for all
students.
We recommend that the colleges and divisions examine ways to partner with diversity
offices such as the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, Human Resources,
International Programs, Center for Diversity and Enrichment, Women’s Resource and
Action Center, and Student Disability Services to provide educational opportunities to
their faculty, staff, and students.
Future Research and Assessment
6. Conduct focus groups as a follow-up to the faculty diversity survey
As a follow-up to this diversity survey of faculty, the Office of Equal Opportunity and
Diversity conducted focus groups. Focus group questions were framed to encourage
intentional conversations that address some of the survey findings and identify facultydefined proposals and solutions. Results of the faculty focus groups will be posted on
the Diversity Climate Survey website.
68
7. Develop and institute diversity plans, design and implement assessment tools, and
establish benchmarks and scorecards for assessing and evaluating the
institutional diversity integration process
Diversity evaluation and assessment are recommended by all major higher education
professional organizations, including the American Association of Colleges and
Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Higher Learning
Commission. The American Evaluation Association has developed a cultural
competency assessment model for diversity evaluators. Well-defined assessment
positions, strategies, and scorecards have been developed at peer institutions such as
Penn State, The University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, Michigan State, and The
University of California system.
Assessing and evaluating diversity practices, policies, and procedures are essential
components of fully realizing the diversity core value in The Iowa Promise (2005).
Diversity assessment addresses the implementation and outcomes of programs and
initiatives, informs continuous improvement, responds to questions about institutional
commitment to diversity, measures the relationship of student satisfaction to
engagement with diversity in living and learning environments, and identifies effective
activities for developing diversity skills.
We support the development and implementation of a strategic planning process for
diversity, including regular assessment. We recommend that this process recognize
the distinctive experiences of undergraduate students, graduate/professional students,
faculty, and staff.
8. Implement diversity indicators to track the faculty experience
We recognize the need to develop indicators for a supportive diversity climate that the
University can track over time, as called for in the University’s strategic plan, The
Iowa Promise (2005). As the data from the final survey is reviewed (i.e., the diversity
climate surveys of staff), we will develop indicators for each of these groups, in
consultation with key administrators and groups on campus responsible for enhancing
the academic and work environment for all members of the University community.
9. Assess the campus diversity climate for faculty on a regular basis
In order to continually improve the campus climate for diversity, it will be necessary
for the University to periodically collect information from faculty, as well as from
other campus constituency groups (i.e., undergraduate students, graduate/professional
students and staff).
The committee is grateful for the support from the Office of the President for this
initial study. We look forward to continued support from this and other offices in
future years as we continue to monitor progress on creating and maintaining a
supportive campus environment for all faculty, staff and students.
69
70
REFERENCES
Clark, L. A., Hauserman, N., Persson, D., & Washington-Hoagland, C. (2006, January 23).
Sexual harassment and unwelcomed behavior at The University of Iowa: Results of a
campus-wide survey. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from The University of Iowa Web
site: http://www.uiowa.edu/president/taskforces/sexual_harass_survey/Sexual%20Harassment%20Survey%20Final%20Report%20
012306.pdf
Diversity Action Committee report and recommendations. (2006, March). Retrieved
December 1, 2006, from The University of Iowa Web site:
http://provost.uiowa.edu/docs/reports/DACreport.pdf
The Iowa promise: A strategic plan for The University of Iowa 2005 – 2010. (2005).
Retrieved December 1, 2006, from The University of Iowa Web site:
http://www.uiowa.edu/homepage/news/strategic-plans/strat-plan-0510/print/TheIowaPromise.pdf
The University of Iowa first-year student survey, 2005. (2005). Retrieved December 1, 2006,
from The University of Iowa Web site:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~examserv/Level_2/resources/First-year_Student_Survey/2005.pdf
Working at Iowa survey results. (2006, September). Retrieved December 1, 2006, from The
University of Iowa Web site: http://www.uiowa.edu/hr/working/survey_report.pdf
71