|
Analysis of MU-ADVANCE Offer Survey As an initiative of MU-ADVANCE, recruitment is a high priority. Although the Program is making a concerted effort to change recruitment efforts, gearing toward a more diverse faculty, we recognize that this does not necessarily mean that the atmosphere will change. In other words, Marshall can attempt to recruit more women, but that does not guarantee that the offers extended will be accepted. According to Professional Women and Minorities: A Total Human Resources Data Compendium, women accounted for 12.2% of all Science & Engineering (S&E) doctoral recipients in 1920, and 37.4% in 2004. Although more and more women are obtaining Ph.D.s, they are not acquiring faculty positions at the same rate as their male counterparts. In fact, the National Research Council found that: “A larger percentage of Ph.D.s went to women, while a smaller percentage of assistant professor positions were held by women” (NRC 2001). When examining Marshall’s application data for searches conducted in 2006/2007, it shows that more than half the offers in STEM departments were made to women. However, less than half of the women accepted these offers, compared to 67% of men. With these statistics in mind, the MU-ADVANCE Program developed an offer survey in an attempt to determine why offers are accepted and declined. These offer surveys should shed light on what aspects of Marshall’s recruiting effort are working and what needs to be improved. The MU-ADVANCE Program’s inception date was September 1, 2006. Thus, the Program has already been part of a full year’s worth of searches in various departments. During this time, the offer survey was developed, and in the Summer of 2007 it was posted to the Program’s external evaluator’s website to ensure anonymity of the participants. The MU-ADVANCE office attempted to make contact with those applicants who received an offer for Fall 2007 or Spring 2008, even if they declined the offer. As of November 2007, seven women who had accepted offers had completed the survey. No surveys were received from those who declined offers. Survey participants were asked to assess the importance of 14 factors that were potential considerations relative to the employment offer. Overall the “Research Opportunities” at Marshall generated the highest response as being extremely important in swaying their decisions to come here, followed by “Impression of Department,” “Potential for Advancement,” and “Start-up Package.” Additional comments made in regards to Marshall included: “The teaching load was not overwhelming;” “Great colleagues…very supportive environment;” and “The position seems to require exactly the kind of work I want to do.” Nearly half of the survey respondents saw the job ad on HigherEdJobs.com, a service provided to the entire campus by MU-ADVANCE. Respondents suggested that a more information-rich website be developed to showcase Marshall and the hiring departments. However, there were also positive recruitment comments stating that “MU did very well – thanks,” and “MU-ADVANCE is doing a great job.” Because no surveys were completed by those who declined offers, it is not surprising that the feedback Marshall received was positive. When comparing the results from the offer survey with the attrition data, which showed that faculty members who choose to leave the university tend to do so within 1.3 years, it becomes clear that the initial enthusiasm for coming to Marshall can dissipate quickly. The next logical step for MU-ADVANCE is to try to determine what problems are occurring during this critical first year of employment. If problem areas are successfully identified, steps to remedy these will be crucial to Marshall’s future. With that in mind, MU-ADVANCE will create a follow-up survey to administer one year after new faculty arrive at Marshall to assess problem areas and to help determine institutional strengths and weaknesses relative to the connection between recruitment and retention/attrition.
Counter has been set to 0. Please remove setCounter code. |
