| The survey posed a series of questions about faculty members’
perceptions of their own, Rice’s, and their departments’ commitments
to the goal of increasing participation of minorities in graduate programs.
- Comparing perspectives on university, department,
and individual commitment
Table 3 compares the priority level that
faculty attributed to the Rice administration, their departments, and
themselves towards the goal of increasing minority representation. Two
thirds reported that they and their departments rate this as either
a high (23%) or medium (59%) priority, and view the administration as
giving even more priority to the goal than either their department or
themselves.
Table 3: Faculty respondents’ rating
of the priority for the Rice administration, their department, and
themselves for increasing the number of underrepresented minority
graduate students (in all tables that follow, percentages were calculated
based on the total number of question respondents).
| Level of priority |
Rice Administration |
Departments |
Individual Faculty |
| N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
| High priority |
22 (23%) |
13 (13%) |
13 (14%) |
| Medium priority |
57 (59%) |
51 (53%) |
48 (50%) |
| Low priority |
13 (13%) |
26 (27%) |
24 (25%) |
| Not a priority at all |
5 (5%) |
7 (7%) |
11 (11%) |
| Total |
N=97 (100%) |
N=97 (100%) |
N=96 (100%) |
- Faculty view of department's stance
on increasing diversity
In order to understand faculty members’
perceptions about, and experience in, their own department with respect
to the goal of increasing diversity at the graduate level, we asked
faculty respondents to characterize their department’s stance.
Twenty-four percent of respondents thought that their department had
formally defined this as a goal (the responses represent a total of
11 out of 15 departments surveyed), and 33% said that they thought that
their department had never formally discussed this issue (represents
a total of 13 out of 15 departments surveyed). However, text comments
indicated that the responses might have been skewed by the question
of whether their department had “formally defined” [this
issue] as a departmental goal. In fact it appears that some of the departments
had indeed informally made this a goal. Therefore, there appears to
be more departmental commitment than these numbers would represent.
However, the data highlights the fact that there are conflicting perceptions
of this issue by faculty members within the same department.
Table 4: Faculty view of department stance
toward increasing minority graduate participation by department. (n=91)
| Departments |
Number of faculty members
that chose departmental stance |
| Dept defined as formal
goal |
Dept decided shouldn’t
be a goal |
Dept never considered
this a goal |
Dept never formally
discussed |
Other |
Total |
| Biochemistry & Cell Biology |
7 |
1 |
|
1 |
5 |
14 |
| Bioengineering |
|
|
|
1 |
3 |
4 |
| Chemical Eng |
|
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
| Chemistry |
3 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
10 |
| Civil Eng |
|
|
|
2 |
|
2 |
| Computational & Applied Math |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
5 |
| Computer Science |
2 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
| Ecology
& Evolutionary Biology |
|
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
| Electrical
& Computer Eng |
2 |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
9 |
| Environmental
Science & Eng |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
| Geology
& Geophysics |
|
|
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
| Mathematics |
|
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
| Mechanical
Eng & Material Sci |
|
|
|
4 |
1 |
5 |
| Physics and Astronomy |
2 |
|
|
6 |
8 |
16 |
| Statistics |
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
4 |
| Grand Total |
22 |
2 |
7 |
30 |
30 |
90 |
- Individual Perspective
We asked faculty
survey respondents to rate the level of concern they placed on certain
factors in their decision-making process in accepting graduate students
into their research group (see Table 4).
The most significant concerns (“of concern” or “of
considerable concern”) in whether to accept a student were:
- 76% said that the pressure to be competitive in being able to
renew their grant.
- 70% said that they consider the pressure to select students who
will progress rapidly with regard to publications and finishing
their degree.
These two factors far outweighed concerns about faculty members’
own interest in increasing the number of underrepresented minority
graduate students (32% rated this “of concern” or “of
considerable concern”), or the pressures to do so (8% rated
this “of concern” or “of considerable concern”).
These findings indicate that Rice’s faculty respondents feel
much more pressured to make progress on their research than they do
to increase the number of underrepresented minority students.
Table 5: Faculty respondents’ rating
of items related to accepting and supporting new graduate students
in their research group
| Item
choices related to the support of graduate students |
Ratings N (%) |
| Not of concern (1) |
Somewhat of a concern (2) |
Of concern
(3) |
Of considerable concern (4) |
Mean (S.D.) |
| The pressure on you
to be competitive in being able to renew your grant (n=89) |
4
(5%) |
17
(19%) |
33
(37%) |
35
(39%) |
3.11 (.87) |
| The pressure on you
to support students who will make rapid progress with regard
to publications and in finishing their degree (n=90) |
6
(7%) |
21
(23%) |
30
(33%) |
33
(37%) |
3.00 (.94) |
| Retaining graduate
students to the completion of their degree (n=88) |
8
(9%) |
22
(25%) |
27
(31%) |
31
(35%) |
2.92 (.99) |
| Your own interest
in increasing the number of underrepresented minority graduate students (n=87) |
19
(22%) |
40
(46%) |
21
(24%) |
7
(8%) |
2.18 (.87) |
| The pressure to increase the number
of underrepresented minority graduate students (n=85) |
36
(42%)
|
42
(49%)
|
6
(7%)
|
1
(1%)
|
1.67 (.66) |
| Having to decide among
underrepresented minority student, a foreign student or a
non-underrepresented minority student (n=85) |
58
(68%) |
16
(19%) |
8
(9%) |
3
(4%) |
1.47 (.82) |
In addition, we asked faculty members to indicate what strategies
they had implemented to promote diversity (see
Table 5). Only 26% said that they have defined increasing
and retaining underrepresented minority graduate students in their
lab or research group as a goal, and 20% said that it had never occurred
to them to make this a goal.
Table 6: Faculty view of their own strategies
to increase minority graduate participation
| Items about labs and
underrepresented minority graduate students |
N |
% |
| I
have advised underrepresented minority graduate student/s |
60 |
62% |
| I
have funded from my research grant underrepresented minority
graduate student/s |
37 |
38% |
| I
have wanted an underrepresented minority graduate student
in my lab, but no qualified applicants were available |
32 |
33% |
| I
have defined increasing and retaining underrepresented minority
graduate students in my lab or research group as a goal. |
25 |
26% |
| I
have provided activities that support retention. |
20 |
21% |
| It
has never occurred to me to make increasing and retaining
underrepresented minority graduate students a goal |
19 |
20% |
| Other |
7 |
7% |
| I
have decided that increasing and retaining underrepresented
minority graduate students should not be a goal |
4 |
4% |
| I
have refused admission to underrepresented minority applicants
into my research group |
0 |
0% |
*This survey question asked respondents to “check all that
apply”.
In addition to asking faculty members to rank the level of priority
they themselves would attribute towards the goal of increasing minority
representation (see Table 2),
faculty members were asked about their perceptions of the optimal
percentage of their department’s graduate students that should be
underrepresented minorities (see Table 6).
Note that 35% of faculty respondents said that 0-10% of their program’s
graduate students should be minority (with 16% saying optimally there
should be no minorities.)
Table 7: Faculty respondents’ perception
of the optimal percentage of their department’s graduate students
that should be underrepresented minority
| Optimal % minority makeup |
N |
% |
| 0% |
15 |
16% |
| 1-10% |
19 |
19% |
| 11-20% |
35 |
36% |
| 21-30% |
17 |
18% |
| 31-40% |
7 |
7% |
| 41-50% |
3 |
3% |
| 99% |
1 |
1% |
|
