Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system
(USC Thesis Other)
Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Faculty Perceptions of Barriers: Gender and Ethnicity Differences Among Tenured and
Tenure-Track Faculty in the University of California System
Juanita P. Jackson
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2023
© Copyright by Juanita Jackson 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Juanita Jackson certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Raquel Torres-Retana
Briana Hinga
Sheila Banuelos, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
The academic literature suggests that the experiences of women and faculty of color are
differentiated and have more complexity than other groups; however, the specific elements of the
academic environment that create or perpetuate these experiences with regard to barriers are not
widely explored. This study surveyed 60 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of
California system to determine if microaggressions, sense of belonging, campus climate, the
faculty advancement process, mentorship, student evaluations of teaching, and research were
perceived barriers. The study also sought to determine if there were gender and ethnicity
differences in the perceptions of those barriers. The results suggest that women and faculty of
color have the highest reporting perceptions of barriers for all seven variables, and White faculty
report the fewest perceptions of barriers than any group. The findings provide insight into
tenured and tenure-track faculty experiences and help identify the components of higher
education that researchers should investigate further.
v
Dedication
To Dominic, you are the best gift life has ever given me and are my sole motivation for reaching
for the stars. Through being your mom, I experience a love and a motivation that I did not even
know was possible; I dedicate this dissertation to you.
To my husband, Sergio, thank you for your unconditional love and support throughout this
process; I am so grateful to have you by my side now and forever; I dedicate this dissertation to
you.
To my parents and brothers, you all gave me the foundation needed to be who I am today.
Because of your influence, care, and love, I have always felt like no dream was too big; thank
you for inspiring me; I dedicate this dissertation to you.
To women and people of color in this country, and specifically in higher education, we navigate
a world that was not built with us in mind. This dissertation fundamentally challenges higher
education processes, procedures, and practices that create barriers to and overlook our
experiences. May we unapologetically create spaces for us to thrive, and may our work continue
to investigate and dismantle the status quo. I dedicate this body of work to us.
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the unwavering support I received from family and friends. I
truly do not know if I would have been able to accomplish this doctorate without having you all
in my corner cheering me on. I love you! To my committee, Dr. Sheila Banuelos, Dr. Raquel
Torres-Retana, Dr. Brianna Hinga, and Dr. Dennis Hocevar, thank you for your guidance and
sharing your knowledge throughout this process. Words cannot express how grateful I am to
have had the amount of support and encouragement I have received from the four of you; it is
truly incredible. Thank you! A special thank you to my cohort colleagues; you are all such a
wonderful group of human beings. I could not have asked for a better network while navigating
this program; thank you all so much!
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................6
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................7
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ....................................................................................................9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................11
Microaggressions ...............................................................................................................11
Sense of Belonging ............................................................................................................15
Campus Climate .................................................................................................................17
Faculty Advancement ........................................................................................................18
Faculty and Mentoring .......................................................................................................21
Student Evaluations of Teaching .......................................................................................24
Research Productivity ........................................................................................................28
Theoretical Framework: Critical Race Theory ..................................................................29
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................33
Site and Participant Selection ............................................................................................33
Sampling and Recruitment .................................................................................................34
viii
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................35
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................36
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................37
Researcher Background .....................................................................................................38
Chapter Four: Results ....................................................................................................................40
Participants .........................................................................................................................40
Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................46
Findings..............................................................................................................................46
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................47
Implications for Practice and Recommendations ..............................................................48
Future Research .................................................................................................................51
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................52
References ......................................................................................................................................53
Appendix A: Keck School of Medicine at USC’s Faculty Process for Appointment and
Promotions .....................................................................................................................................66
Appendix B: University of California Riverside, Normative Time at Step Chart .........................67
Appendix C: Research Study Flyer................................................................................................68
Appendix D: Email Communication Sample ................................................................................69
Appendix E: Information Sheet .....................................................................................................70
Appendix F: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................72
Purpose ...............................................................................................................................72
Participant Involvement .....................................................................................................72
Payment/Compensation for Participation ..........................................................................72
Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................73
Investigator Contact Information .......................................................................................73
IRB Contact .......................................................................................................................73
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics 41
Table 2: Sample, Mean, Standard Deviation and Significance for Responses by Gender 42
Table 3: Sample, Mean, Standard Deviation and Significance for Responses by Ethnicity 45
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: UC Faculty Gender by Percentage 3
Figure 2: UC Faculty Ethnicity by Percentage 3
Appendix A: Keck School of Medicine at USC’s Faculty Process for Appointment and
Promotions 66
Appendix B: University of California Riverside, Normative Time at Step Chart 67
Appendix C: Research Study Flyer 68
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Historically, the institutional transformation needed to accomplish anti-racist, equity-
based change has been difficult to accomplish (Welton et al., 2018). One of the main reasons
these efforts have been so difficult is the normative nature of institutional functions that protect
established processes, policies, and environments that make university functioning easier. This is
done by relinquishing members of the institutions from decision making and the daily stress that
comes along with it (Welton et al., 2018). This means that maintaining habitual norms helps to
make institutional functioning easier because it takes the pressure of unabating decision making
off individuals and allows for decisions to be led by policy and practice (Welton et al., 2018).
This process is part of the difficulty in creating change because developing and enacting change
means forcing institutional leadership to question and critically examine norms that they have
become comfortable with and possibly having to acknowledge that these norms may indeed
perpetuate inequities that negatively affect marginalized faculty, staff, and students (Larson &
Ovando, 2001; Welton et al., 2018).
Due to recent social unrest in the United States following the murder of Black people at
the hands of the police and the call for police reform due to systemic racism, higher education
institutions are being forced to examine not only their own law enforcement on campuses but all
their functions. Some of these examinations uncover racism and inequities in college/campus
practices and policies. With this emphasis on equity-based, anti-racist governance, higher
education institutions now focus attention on how policies and practices disproportionately affect
historically marginalized groups more so than other groups. For example, in 2020, the University
of Southern California removed the name of prominent eugenics supporter and former college
president Rufus von KleinsSmid from a popular campus building (Watanabe & Mier, 2020). In
2
2021, after a call from the Black Student Union, the University of Wisconsin removed a 42-ton
boulder dubbed a symbol of racism because of its historical nickname as the n-word (Zdanowicz,
2021). While intentional examination of institutional functions is helpful and could lead to
positive change, there is growing encouragement for emphasizing policies and practices and
examining how the needs of constituency groups on campus are not being met and supported by
strategy or procedure. This occurs not only in student and staff spaces but also in policies and
practices that govern the professoriate.
This study examined University of California (UC) faculty experiences and perceptions
of barriers in the professoriate to determine whether ethnicity and gender play a role in these.
The UC system has 10 campuses, six academic health centers, and three national laboratories
(University of California Office of the President [UCOP], n.d.). Additionally, the UC’s mission
is centered around research, teaching, and service. Most recent demographics of UC faculty
show that it is comprised of predominantly White males. The demographic details are listed as
follows:
3
Figure 1
UC Faculty Gender by Percentage
Note. Adapted from data provided by the University of California Information Center.
Figure 2
UC Faculty Ethnicity by Percentage
Note. Adapted from data provided by the University of California Information Center.
Women,
35.70%
Men 64.30%
UC Faculty Gender by Percentage
October 2021
3.20%
49.30%
22.40%
7.60%
0.30%
1.50%
5.30%
UC Faculty Ethnicity by Percentage
Black/African/African
American
White
Asian
Hispanic/Latino(a)
American Indian
Two or More Races
4
Statement of the Problem
According to Welton et al. (2018)
because educational institutions have unspoken norms and social agreements that have a
long history that has been established and developed over time, they become deeply
embedded into the fabric of how they operate. This history means the institutional status
quo is designed to long outlast those tasked with maintaining it. (Welton et al., 2018. p.
1)
To effectively create and implement equitable policies, it is important to understand the
experiences of campus constituencies. For faculty, emphasis should be placed on understanding
their differentiated experiences in relation to historically marginalized and racially minoritized
groups. Examining policies and practices that may not have been developed while intentionally
considering how differentiated experiences may affect success is critical. Throughout academic
literature, experiences of women and racially minoritized faculty are widely noted as complex
and more differentiated than other groups. Therefore, these experiences should intentionally
guide institutional efforts. While the literature supports the concept that women and racially
minoritized faculty experience the academy differently, the specific components of the academic
environment that are created by or affected by these differentiated experiences are not widely
explored; however, investigating these components are paramount to building equitable spaces.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand how institutional practices, policies and
environments affect faculty. The aim was to gain insight into ethnicity and gender-differentiated
experiences and perceptions of barriers that affect overall success and productivity. This
quantitative study explored faculty perspectives of microaggressions, sense of belonging, campus
5
climate, the advancement process, lack of mentorship, student evaluations of teaching, and
research as potential barriers for faculty in the UC system.
The faculty advancement process is considered a potential barrier because the academic
literature notes that gender biases present significant barriers to the advancement of women
(Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021). Microaggressions are considered, as they can be gendered and
hierarchical, particularly in environments where women are the underrepresented constituent and
where competition is prevalent, such as higher education, medicine, and STEM disciplines.
Higher education remains male-dominated despite an increasing number of women faculty
entering the academy (Haynes-Baratz, 2021). Particularly for research institutions, faculty
research productivity is significant to advancement; however, evidence suggests that women and
faculty of color may have experiences that affect this, and these experiences pose a potential
barrier to research productivity. Barriers to research productivity will also be explored.
One’s sense of belonging is attributed to feelings of connectedness, validation,
acceptance, support, affirmation, and mattering (Strayhorn, 2012, 2019; Wright-Mair, 2020).
Feeling connected in an environment allows diverse populations in higher education to be heard,
appreciated, and welcomed (Strayhorn, 2012; Wright-Mair, 2020) and has been found to be
fundamental to educational success and human well-being (Hagerty et al., 2002; Maslow, 1954;
Wright-Mair, 2020). A lack of sense of belonging could pose a barrier because of this, and
therefore, will be explored in this study. In addition, faculty mentoring has proven to be a critical
component of junior faculty success, recruitment, retention, and advancement (Bruner et al.,
2016) and is found to be associated with increased productivity (Edalgo et al., 2021). Evidence
suggests that racially minoritized faculty benefit greatly from holistically and critically conscious
mentoring by colleagues, peer mentoring groups, and community-based mentoring relationships
6
(Wright-Mair, 2020). For these reasons, faculty access to mentoring is also examined as a
potential barrier. The evidence for differentiated biases in Student Evaluations of Teaching
(SET), particularly for women faculty, is overwhelming; therefore, faculty may perceive them as
a barrier to advancement, particularly if they are women or faculty of color. The SETs are also
explored as a perceived barrier.
Research Questions
Through a critical race theory lens, student evaluations of teaching, access to mentoring,
sense of belonging, the advancement process, and microaggressions are examined as potential
barriers. These themes are part of institutional structures, practices and campus environments
that have the potential to create differentiated faculty experiences. Survey data will increase
understanding of barriers that UC faculty face and help to reveal how institutional practices,
environments, and policies or lack thereof, disproportionately affect marginalized groups. The
research questions for this study are as follows:
1. Among faculty in the UC system, are microaggressions, sense of belonging, campus
climate, the faculty advancement process, lack of access to mentorship, teaching
evaluations, and research perceived barriers?
2. Are there gender and ethnicity differences in the perceptions of barriers among
faculty in the UC system?
Significance of the Study
While the academic literature has weighed in on barriers experienced by faculty, this
study focuses on barriers specific to faculty in the UC system. A research university system in
which research activities are prioritized and thus are a significant part of advancing the
university's mission. For faculty, the study provides the opportunity to participate in research that
7
could directly inform policies and practices that govern the professoriate and the spaces they
occupy. One of the study's goals was to inform practice to improve faculty experiences.
In terms of practice, the data provide insight into the differentiated experiences and
perceptions of barriers for faculty in a research institution system, not just a particular campus.
For anti-racist, equity-based change to work, there must be an action-oriented commitment from
the individual level to the system level, so system-level support to enact effective change is
essential (Welton et al., 2018). At all levels, the data obtained from this study can provide
leadership with information needed to determine if there is a significant need for things like
additional programs for mentoring access, training to assist with issues related to sense of
belonging, or microaggressions, including the need to delve deeper into examining campus
climate. Additionally, while biases related to student evaluations of teaching have been proven to
be prevalent, this study provides UC campuses the opportunity to examine how their faculty
perceive this and to what extent they are affected by it. This insight could inform data-driven
policymaking and identify established spaces in university practices and environments that may
be a hidden source of inequities. Eliminating these barriers that perpetuate or maintain inequities
is critical to providing overall equitable faculty support.
Theoretical Framework
This study examined higher education policy, practice, and environment through the lens
of critical race theory (CRT), which emerged from the idea that the law enforces and legitimizes
dominant social and power relations through social actors. Social actors believe their actions and
decisions to be unbiased via the objective process of legal rationale, and therefore, American law
serves and legitimizes oppressive social order (Lynn & Dixson, 2013). Essentially, CRT exposes
that traditional law and legal discourse are entrenched with the views and perspectives of the
8
White majority yet operate under the guise of neutrality (Lynn & Dixson, 2013). Critical race
theory initially examined built-in biases in American law; however, initial scholars deemed it
inadequate in addressing the challenges traditional law implemented on people of color. From
this perspective, the idea that racial oppression rooted in traditional legal thinking is that of the
perpetrators of racial oppression and not of the victims of racial oppression (Lynn & Dixson,
2013). Of this concept, five central tenets to CRT emerged: (a) racism is normal and ordinary in
U.S. society, not aberrant, (b) interest convergence or material determinism, (c) race as a social
construction, (d) counter-narrative, (e) Intersectionality and anti-essentialism (Lynn & Dixson).
In higher education, CRT has been used to evaluate many institutional structures,
including teaching, research, and practice (Hiraldo, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2005), and while
CRT in education initially emerged with the primary focus of examining issues of racism and
inequities, these things intersect of other forms of oppression such as sexism (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2001; Lynn & Dixson, 2013). For this reason, CRT will be used as the theoretical
framework for this study in examining perceived barriers and gender and ethnicity differences in
perceived barriers.
Definition of Terms
Microaggressions are “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and
environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile,
derogatory, or negative slights, invalidations, and insults to an individual or group because of
their marginalized status in society” (Sue, 2010, p. 124). Microaggressions consist of three
specific types of actions: microinvalidations, microassaults, and microinsults.
Sense of belonging is defined as the perception that one is an integral part of a place,
community, organization, or institution (Asher & Weeks, 2014) and is attributed to feelings of
9
connectedness, validation, acceptance, support, affirmation, and mattering (Strayhorn, 2012,
2019; Wright-Mair, 2020).
Campus climate is defined as the current attitudes, behaviors, practices and standards of
staff, students, and faculty toward access to inclusion and level of respect for individual and
group needs, abilities, and potential (Rankin & Reason, 2008).
Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are feedback solicited from the students regarding
the instructor’s teaching used as a measurement of student course satisfaction and an indirect
measure of learning (Murray, 2007).
Mentoring is referred to as the process by which a faculty member, usually of higher rank
and often well-accomplished, is involved in helping the development of a more junior-level
faculty member (Bruner et al., 2016).
Research is defined as a detailed study of a subject, especially to discover new
information or reach a new understanding (Cambridge University Press, n.d.).
Faculty advancement is the process by which faculty promote or progress through the
professorial ranks. In the faculty advancement section, tenure is discussed at length and is an
indefinite academic appointment in which termination can only be considered under
extraordinary circumstances (American Association of University Professors, 2022).
Organization of the Study
Chapter Two presents a literature review on the barriers examined and discusses how
CRT is relevant to education, as well as the current study on faculty perceived barriers. I will
then outline the methodology in Chapter Three. Chapter Four will provide an overview of the
study's findings to determine whether microaggressions, sense of belonging, campus climate, the
faculty advancement process, access to mentorship, teaching evaluations, and research are
10
perceived barriers and whether there are ethnicity and gender differences in those perceptions. In
Chapter Five, I will conclude with the discussion of findings and implications for further
research and application of the data.
11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter discusses the faculty advancement process, sense of belonging, faculty
access to mentoring, microaggressions, research, and student evaluations of teaching as potential
barriers to advancement and productivity. Critical race theory is utilized as the theoretical
framework for this study.
Microaggressions
“Microaggressions” is a term first described in the 1970s as “subtle, stunning, often
automatic, and non-verbal exchanges which are put downs of blacks by offenders” (Pierce et al.,
1978, p. 66). Since then, there have been many scholarly contributions to the unpacking,
developing, and understanding of the concept in the literature, and, as expected, the definition
has evolved. Sue (2010) expounded on the definition as “brief and commonplace daily verbal,
behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that
communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights, invalidations, and insults to an individual
or group because of their marginalized status in society” (p. 124). Microaggressions are frequent
in many interpersonal interactions and societal spaces, including the workplace. In higher
education, particularly among faculty, microaggressions are thought to be exacerbated by the
competitive nature of academia. The competition associated with producing research, teaching
distinctions, grant production, and the drive to tenure and promotion often cultivates put-downs
by aggressors to affect competition (Berk, 2017).
Sue et al. (2007) proposed that microaggressions are interpersonal outward and structural
racism in society that manifests in three forms: microinvalidations, microassaults, and
microinsults. Microinvalidations are statements or behaviors that ignore the experiences of
people of color (Sue et al., 2007) or where the experiences and realities of people of color are
12
invalidated (Pittman, 2012). This may include denying the existence of racism, subscribing to a
color-blind ideology (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Moody & Lewis, 2019), or accusing a person of color
of being hypersensitive, instead of recognizing racial oppression (Pittman, 2012). Microassaults
are overt racism, done with the intent of being hurtful to a person of color; microassaults are
conscious and deliberate (Moody & Lewis, 2019; Sue et al., 2007). Examples of microassaults
are racial slurs, the exhibiting of White supremacy symbols and signs, and refusing to interact
with someone because of their race (Moody & Lewis, 2019; Sue et al., 2007).
Microinsults are thought to be often unconscious and subtle interactions or comments that
demean a person’s racial identity or heritage (Pittman, 2012; Sue et al., 2007). Examples of
microinsults include crediting affirmative action as the reason behind a person of color obtaining
a job (Pittman, 2012; Sue et al., 2007). Because of its competitiveness, the academic
environment can foster these occurrences, but because microaggressions are enacted upon
marginalized groups, investigating how they affect these groups in academic spaces is critical. In
a case study by Pittman (2012, 14 African American faculty at a predominantly White institution
were interviewed to determine if they experienced racial microaggressions on campus. Pittman
found that 86% of the faculty reported their race as playing a significant role in their campus
experiences; 71% of the faculty categorized the role of their race as damaging their experiences
(Pittman, 2012).
Of the faculty interviewed, 79% discussed the role race plays in their interactions with
their White colleagues, meaning they reported frequent microinvalidations of being treated
differently or excluded (Pittman, 2012. Of the 79%, 37% noted feeling unwelcome or excluded
by their White colleagues, and the other 37% noted being treated differently because of their race
by White colleagues (Pittman, 2012). The faculty also described race interactions with White
13
students, with 36% reporting having experienced microinsults that challenged the faculty’s
intellect, competence, or authority (Pittman, 2012). In sum, race played a negative role in the
interactions of African American faculty and their White colleagues by way of microaggressions.
The interactions between faculty of color and their students have been explored as well.
In 2011, Sue et al. interviewed eight faculty of color from private universities in the Northeastern
United States; two were men, and six were women. Four of the faculty were Asian, three were
Black/African American, and one was Latino. The study looked to determine the classroom
experiences of faculty of color when racial topics were discussed. The data analysis revealed that
challenging racial dialogues were frequently instigated by racial microaggressions delivered to
students of color or the professor (Sue et al., 2011). Additionally, Sue et al. found that the Latino,
Black and Asian faculty faced racism from White students by interrupting them in class or
suggesting their ideas could not be verified in the text.
The literature reviewed thus far provides support that faculty of color experience
microaggressions from their White colleagues and from White students. However, a significant
amount of literature also suggests that microaggressions are prevalent among students in higher
education. For example, Moody and Lewis (2019) used a stratified random sample of
undergraduate and professional students of color from a historically White university and
investigated the frequency of racial microaggressions. The authors found that not only did
African American students report experiencing a significantly greater frequency of racial
microaggressions, but for African American students (F (3, 307) = 27.91, p < .001), Latinx
students (F (3, 305) = 25.04, p < .001), and Asian students (F (3, 360) = 10.71, p < .001) racial
microaggressions significantly predicted sense of belonging.
14
Microaggressions can be gendered and hierarchical, particularly in environments where
women are underrepresented and where competition is prevalent. Despite an increasing number
of women faculty entering the academy, higher education is a space that remains male-
dominated. Research on gender microaggressions suggests that the expression of subtle gender
bias has a powerful negative impact on women faculty’s access to support, research, and
advancement (Haynes-Baratz, 2021). Sue and Capodilupo (2008) posited six gendered
microaggressions that women experience: sexual objectification, second-class citizen,
assumption of inferiority, denial of the reality of sexism, assumption of traditional gender roles,
and the use of sexist language (Haynes-Baratz, 2021; Sue & Capodilupo, 2008).
In a 2018 study by Yang and Carrol, women faculty from a broad range of STEM
disciplines at a midwestern university were given a questionnaire about their experiences with
microaggressions in their fields. In the study, 73% of respondents reported having at least
experienced one form of sexual objectification; 76.3% experienced being silenced or
marginalized; 47% experienced being ignored or had their authority challenged in a professional
setting; and 76% of women faculty reported experiencing the “strong women” microaggression
type. Overall, of the gendered microaggression types described by Sue and Capodilupo (2008),
the women faculty in the study experienced four different types of gendered microaggressions:
sexual objectification, being silenced or marginalized, workplace microaggressions, and strong
women, with 68.8% reporting having experienced at least one form of microaggression in the
workplace (Yang & Carroll, 2018). As discussed, microaggressions harm the groups
experiencing them. Particularly in higher education, determining the association among impact,
success, and advancement is imperative to ensuring equitable, anti-racist, anti-sexist spaces.
15
Sense of Belonging
Sense of belonging is the perception that one is an integral part of a place, community,
organization, or institution (Asher & Weeks, 2014) and is attributed to feelings of connectedness,
validation, acceptance, support, affirmation, and mattering (Strayhorn, 2012, 2019; Wright-Mair,
2020). The literature supports cultivating a sense of belonging for the success of students and
faculty alike, particularly in historically marginalized and underserved groups. Feeling connected
in an environment allows diverse populations in higher education to be heard, appreciated, and
welcomed (Strayhorn, 2012; Wright-Mair, 2020) and, therefore, is associated with a variety of
benefits on college campuses for many constituency groups. In a 2019 study by Ryan et al., part-
time faculty who had a sense of belonging at their institutions defined belonging that focused on
being in an environment in which their socio-emotional needs were being met, where they felt
calm, fulfilled, comfortable, valued, respected, and happy.
In student populations, not only is sense of belonging linked to success, but it has also
been strongly correlated to perceived meaningfulness of life (Lambert et al., 2013). Sense of
belonging has also been found to influence a person’s emotional and cognitive patterns, in that
the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation, and therefore a failure to satisfy this need
affects cognitive patterns and produces lasting consequences (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Glass
et al., 2015; Osterman, 2000).
The relevance and influence of the student-faculty connection to sense of belonging are
also widely documented. This relationship is discussed, at length, in the literature as being a
critical component to establishing a supportive environment for students (O’Keeffe, 2013) and is
directly associated with factors like student retention, persistence and overall academic success.
Particularly for students of color, key components and interactions have been identified as being
16
crucial to sense of belonging. Similarly, an examination by Newman et al. (2015) found that
perceived racial-gender stereotypes held by faculty (Std. B = -.159, p < .001)., faculty validation
(Std. B = .140, p < .05), and faculty engagement (Std. B = .176, p < .01), significantly predicted
black male student perceived sense of belonging in community colleges.
The cultural relevance and responsiveness of a campus have also been linked to sense of
belonging (Museus et al., 2018). In a 2018 study by Museus et al. a significant portion of
variance was found between White students and students of color around sense of belonging and
was attributed to the campus’ cultural engagement. Cultural relevance is the extent to which
campus learning environments allow students to connect with other students, faculty, and staff
who understand their cultural background (Museus et al., 2018). It is also the extent to which
students have opportunities to exchange knowledge and information relevant to their cultural
group and to be directly involved in their cultural community’s activism (Museus et al., 2018).
Cultural relevance also concerns opportunities for cross-cultural engagement and how the
campus values and validates cultural identities (Museus et al., 2018). Cultural responsiveness
refers to how effectively a campus responds to culturally diverse student populations’ needs and
the extent to which campuses value teamwork and mutual success (Museus et al., 2018). It
concerns the campus's commitment to developing and cultivating meaningful relationships with
students, the ability to ensure support and access to information, and the extent to which students
have access to a faculty or staff they feel they can trust (Museus et al., 2018). In sum, these
factors determine how culturally engaged a campus is and, therefore, how well it can meet the
cultural needs of its students and faculty and staff.
While there is an abundance of academic literature that focuses on sense of belonging and
how it affects academic life, it is important to acknowledge that there is an association between
17
feeling like one belongs and features of life that are not considered academic, yet equally, if not
more, important. The literature illuminates sense of belonging in an academic setting where
results are related to academic success and that a sense of connectedness and value in the
environment affects the overall meaningfulness of one’s life outside of just academia; sense of
belonging is not only fundamental to educational success but also fundamental to human well-
being (Hagerty et al., 2002; Maslow, 1954; Wright-Mair, 2020).
Campus Climate
Like sense of belonging, campus climate also lends to the overall educational wellness
and success of students, faculty, and staff; however, while both can be responsible for positive
perceptions and outcomes (Settles et al., 2006), campus climate contributes to the campus and
the individual constituent in ways that are fundamentally different than sense of belonging. In
academia, the concept of sense of belonging has specifically been associated with group
membership and value in educational contexts (Newman et al., 2015). Campus climate is defined
as the current attitudes, behaviors, practices and standards of staff, students, and faculty toward
access to inclusion, level of respect for individual and group needs, abilities, and potential
(Rankin & Reason, 2008).
Additionally, campus climate comprises behavioral climate, which is the quality of
intergroup relationships and interactions among constituents from different backgrounds (Chang
et al., 2011; Hurtado et al., 1999). It includes psychological climate, meaning the perceptions and
attitudes toward discrimination and racial tensions, and compositional diversity, which refers to
diversity among students, faculty, and staff. It also pertains to a history or legacy of
inclusion/exclusion, which stems from the mission of the college as well as its historical
18
resistance to desegregation and structural dimensions of the institution, like admissions policies
and diversity of curriculum (Chang et al., 2011).
These factors shape the climate of an institution’s campus and can have significant
impacts on the students, staff, and faculty at those institutions (Chang et al., 2011). For
historically marginalized and underrepresented faculty and students, campus climate can be
especially influential on on-campus experiences. For example, Garvey et al. (2018) found that
for queer-spectrum college students, perceptions of campus climate (ß = 0.08, p < 0.01) and
student comfort with campus climate ((ß = 0.38, p < 0.001) significantly affected their academic
success. In the faculty space, campus climate has been associated with unsuccessful recruitment
of faculty of color, an inability to retain faculty of color, and challenges in the classroom (Sue et
al., 2011).
The academic literature on both sense of belonging in higher education and campus
climate primarily focuses on students, with limited literature dedicated specifically to faculty.
Faculty Advancement
Higher education institutions depend on tenured and non-tenured faculty to achieve their
research, teaching, and service missions. At North American Institutions, tenure-track
appointments are typically reserved for the title of Assistant Professor and are generally sought
out by those with a newly obtained doctoral degree. In academic spaces, tenure refers to an
indefinite academic appointment in which termination can only be considered under
extraordinary circumstances (American Association of University Professors, 2022). Unlike
tenured positions, tenure-track appointments are granted based on the expectation that
permanent, long-term employment will be granted if the individual’s teaching, research, and
service record passes the advancement review. The process follows an established review
19
schedule, usually occurring every 2 to 3 years, and the actual tenure review takes place 5 to 7
years after hire (California State University Los Angeles, 2022; UC Berkeley, 2022). Not all
institution’s advancement policies are identical in how positions and titles are structured;
however, all institutions have a professorial rank system that commences with a junior position
considered entry-level pre-tenure, or fixed-term (Pietilä & Pinheiro, 2020). For an individual to
move from assistant professor to associate or full professor, their academic accomplishment must
be assessed to determine if they deserve tenure.
Consideration for tenure requires that a candidate’s record of their research, teaching, and
service are compiled into a dossier. A dossier is a collection of documents about a particular
person, event, or subject (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2011). While each institution’s dossier
system varies, the dossier should present the full picture of the candidate’s expertise in
scholarship (Novara, 2017). For an advancement review, the dossier is made accessible to
several levels of on-campus and off-campus reviewers to determine if faculty accomplishments
align with the campus's research, teaching, and service commitment. A committee is gathered to
evaluate the dossier for tenure consideration, and in some institutions, a file is reviewed and
evaluated by eligible colleagues in the candidate’s home department. As an example, Appendix
A presents the Keck School of Medicine at USC’s faculty process for appointment and
promotions. For most institutions, this process is similar for step advancements within the ranks
as well, with an established review schedule for each rank and step that dictates normative time
in rank and step and when a particular review should take place. As an example, Appendix B
presents the UC Riverside normal time.
For specificity to the study, the UC was the focus proceeding. For advancement reviews
in the UC system, academic departments collectively review and discuss a candidate’s dossier to
20
assess the impact, quality and quantity of research, teaching, and service productivity. The
department chair solicits a vote for rank (for promotion reviews) or step (for merit reviews),
based on the departmental discussion of the file, in conjunction with the rank and/or step the
candidate has requested to be considered for. A recommendation for rank and/or step is made
based on the voting results, and the department chair writes a letter with voting faculty input. The
department recommendation letter is addressed to the dean, and its specific advancement
recommendation is intended to be part of the dean’s review and consideration of the file.
After the dean’s review, they must make their own advancement recommendation for
consideration by additional campus reviewing bodies, such as the vice provost, provost, vice
chancellor and chancellor. The level to which each file ascends for review depends on the type of
review. The policies involved in faculty advancement are greatly interwoven and connected to
other institutional structures, one of which is campus and departmental voting policies. On most
campuses, voting eligibility relies on rank hierarchy. Not only is it common to have more rights
extended to those higher in the professorial ranks, but it is also common that those higher in rank
decide the extent of voting rights the assistant and associate-level faculty are given.
In the UC system, full professors vote to decide whether associate-level professors have
the right to vote on reviews within the rank of full professor. Similarly, associate-level and full
professors decide whether assistant professors are granted the right to vote on merit and
promotion reviews within the rank of associate professor. This means that tenured faculty
members in a department establish the method by which personnel matters are determined (UC,
2022a). Full professors are automatically granted the right to vote on all reviews, no matter the
rank, because of their professorial rank, and they are also granted decision-making power over
21
the extent to which voting rights are granted to Assistant and Associate Professors in their
department.
With regard to policies that govern faculty, very little consideration is allocated toward
questioning or challenging the status quo. In 2019, Russell et al. discussed how academic
leadership’s implicit biases could affect those undergoing the merit and promotion process and
emphasized recognizing that this process is susceptible to forms of implicit biases that stifle
inclusivity and equity because it is often peer-evaluated. This, too, should extend to academic
policy’s vulnerability to systems of White supremacy. This is particularly relevant when
considering that policy examination and development through an equity-based, anti-racist lens is
a relatively recent standard for higher education policy. Therefore, it is important to consider that
processes like faculty advancement could structurally perpetuate and maintain disadvantages for
those who identify with historically marginalized groups (De Los Reyes & Uddin, 2021).
Scrutiny of current practices is critical to ensuring the true dismantlement of these systems.
Faculty and Mentoring
Mentoring is the process by which a usually higher-ranking and often well-accomplished
faculty member is involved in helping develop a more junior-level faculty member. It is a critical
component of junior faculty success, recruitment, retention, and advancement (Bruner et al.,
2016) and is associated with increased productivity (Edalgo et al., 2021). While the
programmatic and strategy effectiveness of organizing and supporting the mentor-mentee
relationship is lesser known, the literature on the benefits of mentorship consistently supports it
as a mechanism by which people are more productive and, thus, more successful (Bruner et al.,
2016). While mentorship benefits faculty at all ranks, the need for mentorship is greater for
particular subgroups, such as faculty of color, un-tenured faculty, and women.
22
For faculty of color, mentorship is even more significant because of their differentiated
experiences within the academy. For example, evidence suggests that racially minoritized faculty
at Predominantly White Institutions experience hostility, isolation, and unwelcoming
environments (Bonner et al., 2014; Stanley, 2006; Turner, 2003; Wright-Mair, 2020). Wright-
Mair (2020) found that racially minoritized faculty benefited from holistically and critically
conscious mentoring by colleagues, peer mentoring groups, and community-based mentoring
relationships. Critically conscious mentoring “was discussed by participants as the understanding
and prioritization of one’s positionality in the world, and an acknowledgment of power and
oppression and one’s role in disrupting oppressive ideologies and practices” (Wright-Mair, 2020,
p. 13). This study not only contributes to the understanding of the impacts of mentorships for
racially minoritized faculty in neoliberal institutions but also helps to understand mentorship as a
pathway to sense of belonging for these faculty.
It can be assumed that because mentorship affects faculty of color experiences, the
existence or non-existence of the relationship is related to professional and scholarly success; it
is noted as being an established link to increased research productivity. For example, Allen et al.
(2017) interviewed high-achieving African American social work faculty (N = 14) and
determined the factors that significantly contributed to their research productivity and success.
The data revealed four prominent contributing themes: collaboration, time, strategic planning,
and mentorship, with mentorship being the most prominent theme among those interviewed.
Participants described having a mentor as providing a safeguard against success barriers and a
publication strategy because of the opportunities it presented for collaboration and co-authorship,
thus enhancing scholarship (Allen et al., 2017).
23
For non-tenured faculty, a mentoring relationship is arguably more important than the
presence of mentorship for faculty in other tenured ranks. At most academic institutions, the goal
of tenure-track faculty is often to be productive enough to pass the tenure review and attain the
security that comes with the achievement of tenure. Tenure in academia is defined as an
indefinite academic appointment in which termination can only be considered under
extraordinary circumstances (American Association of University Professors, 2022). Access to a
senior faculty member for mentorship opportunities is significantly associated with productivity;
however, the impact of formal mentorship appears to exceed that of non-formal mentorship.
Informal mentorship is described as a mentor-mentee relationship in which each other and
guidance and advice are exchanged without any prearranged schedule or agenda (Leslie et al.,
2005).
In the study, junior faculty report informal mentoring being limited in that they often
reported a lack of mentorship with career direction and work-life balance (Leslie et al., 2005),
meaning that while there are benefits to mentoring arrangements that are not programmatic or
strategically designed, informal mentorship excluded support in significant ways. The data
continues to allude to gaps between access and need. In a 2003 study by Chew et al., 162 junior
faculty from the University of Washington School of Medicine were surveyed to determine their
perspectives on mentoring. It was found that clinician educators who were mentored allocated a
greater portion of time to scholarly activity than those who were not mentored (20.6% versus
11.5%, p ≤ .01); however, mentored faculty were more likely to be men (OR = 2.1, 95% CI =
1.0–4.7). This means that, in the context of this study, those who were mentored engaged in
more productive strategies in their roles. Relatedly, Blood et al., 2012, surveyed women faculty
at Harvard Medical School and School of Dentistry and found that of those reporting having no
24
mentor, 72% of them desired mentoring, and 52% of the respondents identified mentoring gaps
in improving and accomplishing career goals.
Collectively, these two studies strengthen the positive association between mentorship
and productivity but illuminate the need for mentorship improvement for women faculty. These
are not isolated themes; an abundance of studies on university faculty has shown that women are
more likely to have fewer mentors than male faculty and face greater professional adversities that
are associated with slower rates of promotion and an increased likelihood of leaving an
institution before earning tenure (Wasburn, 2007).
Understanding and acknowledging institutional practice that directly or indirectly creates
barriers for underrepresented or marginalized groups is critical. For institutions, a focus on
mentorship programs developed based on data-driven insight in differentiated experiences should
be paramount, and intentionally offering mentoring early on is critical for faculty success and
building a sense of belonging, which can help with connectedness. It not only creates equitable
access tailored to need, but it also lends positively to retention and diversity efforts, which are
needed in academia.
Student Evaluations of Teaching
Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are feedback solicited from the student regarding
the instructor’s teaching and are used as a measurement of student course satisfaction, as well as
an indirect measure of learning (Murray, 2007). While biases in SETs began to be investigated in
the early 1980s, early studies yielded uninfluential results; however, recent findings consistently
suggest biases against women and faculty of color in SETs (Wang & Gonzalez, 2005 Shreffler et
al., 2019).
25
Gender Biases in SETs
In 2017, Boring found that male and female students perceived male professors as more
knowledgeable and having a better ability to lead the class than female professors. In this study,
male students also scored male professors higher on overall satisfaction, despite no difference in
the quantity or quality of learning that took place (Boring, 2017). These findings suggest that
there are not only gender biases in SETs but also a relationship between ratings and perceived
gender stereotypes (Boring, 2017).
In a similar controlled experimental study, MacNell et al. (2014) found that the genders
of assistant instructors for an online course were falsified. Two female instructors moderated an
online course using the same teaching, grading, and information-sharing style, with students
being told that one of the female instructors was male and vice versa. The authors found that
students rated the perceived male instructor higher than the female instructor (MacNell et al.,
2014) despite their actual genders. This data suggests that male instructors are evaluated less
critically than female instructors even when there are no differences in the quality of instruction
(Mitchell & Martin, 2018), and therefore indicates that the use of teaching evaluations
perpetuates gender biases against women. It is suggested that students evaluate their instructors
based on gender stereotypical valued characteristics and tend to evaluate female instructors based
on their personalities and appearance (Mitchell & Martin, 2018).
These same students may expect that their faculty personalities encompass perceived
feminine traits, such as accessibility and warmth (MacNell et al., 2014). This means that students
view female instructors, whom they perceive as having warm and accessible interpersonal
personality traits, more favorably (Andersen & Miller, 1997; Shreffler et al., 2019). This means
that for female faculty, there are inflicted gender expectations that conflict with their professional
26
expectations (Shreffler et al., 2019); the expectation is that female instructors have certain
interpersonal traits, but those same traits can be viewed by students as being less competent or
effective (MacNell et al., 2014). In contrast, male instructors are valued on traits such as
objectivity and professionalism (Shreffler et al., 2019) and are assumed to have legitimate
authority (Mengel et al., 2019).
Because the evidence for gender biases in SETs is clear, it is important to consider how
gender biases in SETs disproportionately affect women faculty’s advancement, particularly
because SETs are utilized as an evaluation metric in instructor advancement reviews. In a 2019
study, Shreffler et al. examined women faculty perceptions of SETs as a barrier to advancement.
From a survey of 197 higher education faculty in the United States with regard to teaching
evaluations, there was a significant difference in male and female faculty perceptions of student
expectations for a high grade, impacting their evaluation scores. Women (M = 4.00, SD = 0.96)
found this to be more impactful than men (M = 3.57, SD = 1.17), p < .01 (Shreffler et al., 2019).
Significant differences were also found in the perceived impact of faculty’s
age/experience on evaluation scores. Women (M = 3.98, SD = 0.96) found this to also be more
impactful than male respondents (M = 3.52, SD = 1.02), p < .01 (Shreffler et al., 2019).
Additionally, responses for whether faculty perceive that SET scores are impacted by their
gender yielded significantly different responses. Female faculty (M = 3.92, SD = 1.14) believe
their gender has a much greater influence on their student evaluations than male faculty (M =
2.91, SD = 1.33), p < .01 (Shreffler et al., 2019). This study provides evidence that female
faculty perceive biases in SETs based on their gender. Shreffler et al. (2019) argued that if
female faculty perceive these biases as present, that is enough to impact their careers, in that
27
there may be an overcompensation for teaching efforts, with disadvantageous research and
service productivity.
Ethnicity Bias in SETs
Biases in SETs have long been a topic of discussion in academic literature. Regarding
ethnicity specifically, some findings support evidence for biases, while others find no significant
differences in scores based on ethnicity. More recent literature on ethnicity biases, though sparse,
has produced evidence suggesting the former. In a 2020 study, Chávez and Mitchell conducted
research in which identical online courses were designed, and the instructor recorded a welcome
video provided to students at the onset of the course. The video was the only reference for
students to know gender and ethnicity. Chávez and Mitchell found that instructors who were
female or people of color received lower overall scores related to students’ experience with their
instructors than White male instructors. Student expectations related to an instructor’s ethnicity
are thought to play a role in biased scoring.
Faculty positions have, historically, and continue to be occupied by predominantly White
individuals. Because of this, White faculty are perceived as the archetypical college professor, so
it could be argued that students are likely to evaluate non-White professors as outside such social
categories (Wang & Gonzalez, 2019). Such categorizing may be likely to influence how students
rate their instructors, resulting in racial biases toward non-White professors (Wang & Gonzalez,
2019). In a 2019 study by Wang and Gonzalez, student course evaluations from three Texas
universities were reviewed to identify the unfavorable impact of SETs on professors of non-
White ethnicities and national origins. Wang and Gonzalez found that students rated White
professors significantly higher than non-White professors, meaning race, ethnicity and national
origin significantly affected a professor’s ratings of teaching effectiveness (b = 0.19, p < 0.01).
28
Similarly, Anderson and Smith (2005) found that students perceived Latina professors as less
warm when their teaching style was stricter and warmer when it was more lenient, compared to
White women professors with the same teaching style.
The literature provides evidence for differentiated biases in SETs, particularly for women
faculty. However, institutions continue to utilize them widely, not only as a measure of instructor
performance but also as a point of assessment of an instructor’s competence and effectiveness
during an advancement review. Because of this, faculty may perceive SETs as a barrier to
advancement, particularly if they are women or faculty of color. Examining the dynamics
between SETs, ethnicity, and gender is vital to ensuring equitable practices.
Research Productivity
Research in higher education is fundamental to institutional missions, and particularly for
research institutions, it is often considered the main driver of advancement in the professoriate
(Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Potter et al., 2011). Institutional expectations of faculty research
responsibilities are increasingly growing, and as that happens, the pressure to meet institutional
research needs is likely to expand faculty obligational pressure (Eagan & Garvey, 2015).
Recently there have been explicit calls for an in-depth examination of differentiated experiences
based on gender and race and how the increasing research expectations affect subgroups
(Blackwell et al., 2009; Eagan & Garvey, 2015). Though there is extensive literature on faculty
productivity, most of the literature focuses on research with regard to quantity and type, grant
funding, and consideration for its impact on future research (Meyer, 2012). While research that
looks to specifically address the intersectionality of race, gender and research productivity is
sparse, there have been a few studies conducted that are significant.
29
Hagan and Ballard (2019) looked at potential barriers to research among faculty in a
health sciences university (n = 86). Hagan and Ballard reported that 58% of the faculty
responding identified lack of time as the main barrier to conducting research, with lack of time
being significantly more of a perceived barrier among female faculty (p = 0.006). Additionally,
lack of time had the highest mean score of all other barriers examined (4.1 ± 1.1).
Relatedly, in 2015, Eagan and Garvey conducted a study on connections among race,
gender, and stress with faculty productivity. Data on teaching, research, and service experiences
from undergraduate faculty at 4-year institutions (n = 21, 840) from the Higher Education
Research Institute was used. They found that stress due to discrimination had negative salience
for faculty of color and women, with faculty of color producing significantly less research than
their White colleagues (Eagan & Garvey, 2015). Additionally, it was reported that, on average,
women in this study reported overall lower research productivity than men.
While the research is sparse, women and faculty of color appear to experience different
challenges and barriers to research productivity than their White and male counterparts. This
elicits the need for further research in this area.
Not all institutions are research-focused, with some focusing on teaching as the crux of
the institutional mission. However, for faculty in research institutions, research is a substantial
expectation. Because of this, it is important to have insight into the challenges and barriers faced
by subgroups of faculty, particularly if those challenges and barriers are relevant to the faculty’s
identity within historically marginalized groups.
Theoretical Framework: Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory (CRT) began in the legal and social justice spaces; however, the onset
of critical race scholarship induced broader dialogues about race and racism in the United States
30
and its role or application to various disciplines (Taylor et al., 2009). The theory has five central
tenets. The first is that racism is normal and ordinary in U.S. society, not aberrant, and is not a
random or isolated individual’s behavior. Racism is part of the normal order of things in U.S.
society. The second is the idea of an interest convergence or material determinism; it is the idea
that whites who control society will not make altruistic actions toward racial justice unless there
is something in it for them. The third is race as a social construction; humans have constructed
social categories that rely heavily on unsubstantiated genetic differences, such as skin color,
despite race being deemed as not a scientific reality. The fourth is voice or counter-narrative; it is
the notion that storytelling operates in a way that is ethnocentric and hegemonic, only glorifying
the perspective of those in power. Therefore, counter-narratives are important to illustrate the
other perspective, not just the perspective that those in power believe to be significant. The fifth
tenet is intersectionality and anti-essentialism. This is the idea that race is a product of other
social forces, so it is important to examine race as an intersection of other social forces (Lynn &
Dixson, 2013).
CRT in Education
In education, CRT is an important analytical tool for challenging inequities by offering
critical perspectives on race, racism, inequities, and the dynamics of power and privilege in
schools (Taylor et al., 2009). In higher education, CRT has been used to analyze and evaluate
teaching, research, and practice (Hiraldo, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2005y). While the focus of
CRT has been examining issues of racism and inequities in education, it also calls for an analysis
of how racism intersects with other forms of oppression, such as sexism, homophobia, nativism,
and classism (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Lynn & Dixson, 2013). While the five tenets are
31
relevant to many facets of higher education, for this study, the counter-narratives tenet and the
tenet that racism is normal and not aberrant will be the focus.
Racism as a fundamental part of the ordinary way of things, which privileges Whites over
people of color (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Hiraldo, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995), resonates with
the impact of racism on systems and structures (Hiraldo, 2010). If structural racism in higher
education is ignored, matters like diversity or inclusion initiatives may be unsuccessful,
perpetuating institutional racism (Hiraldo, 2010; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Assuming that
racism is built into society and an inherent part of social policies, procedures, and structures,
considering its role in education is critical. Doing so brings forth an awareness of structures,
policies, and practices that are potential promoters of racism and sexism as an intersect. It also
helps to illuminate the need for intentional processes to improve institutional structures toward
equitability. Counter-narrative storytelling in higher education can be used to analyze campus
climate and policy, as it provides a voice to marginalized experiences (Hiraldo, 2010). This is of
particular importance, as many college campuses develop ways to increase diversity in academic
spaces (Hiraldo, 2010).
Critical race theory focuses on analyzing issues of racism and inequities in education;
however, it also calls for scholars to examine how racism intersects with other oppressive social
forces, such as sexism (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Lynn & Dixson, 2013). Allowing counter-
narratives to be told can help to uncover some of the complexities and dynamics of such
intersections at a more micro-level. At a campus level, counter-stories can help investigate the
college environment's climate and offer opportunities for further research on how institutions can
become equitable, inclusive, and diverse (Hiraldo, 2010). Via a CRT lens, the goal of this study
is to provide a voice to marginalized faculty experiences based on gender and ethnicity with
32
regard to perceived barriers to success and advancement in the UC system. The study ultimately
aimed to provide data to inform and guide equity-based, anti-racist policy, practice and decision
making in the UC system.
33
Chapter Three: Methodology
Change in higher education involves a shift toward intentional equity-based consideration
of all functions and must be treated as a continuing process requiring systemic change at the
policy and practice level (May & Bridger, 2010). Developing policies through an intentional
equity and anti-racism filter is a relatively recent concept in most spaces; higher education is no
exception. As the call for increased diversity in academic spaces grows, so does the need for
more rigorous examination and interrogation of institutional policies. Particularly regarding
policies and practices that govern faculty, considering differentiated experiences related to
gender and/or ethnicity is critical, given that most policies are directly or indirectly associated
with faculty production or advancement. Differentiated faculty experiences must be considered
to ensure that systems, policies, and standards are developed to equitably serve and support all.
The goal of this study was to gain insight into factors UC faculty perceive as barriers and
determine gender and ethnicity differences in their perceptions to ensure consideration for
differentiated experiences and enactment of equitable practice and policy. This chapter reviews
the quantitative methods utilized to conduct this study.
Site and Participant Selection
The site for this study includes the UC system. The UC was first established in 1868 with
only 40 students enrolled and 10 faculty (UCOP, n.d.)) and has since grown to include 10
campuses across the state. According to UCOP n.d.), 294,662 students are enrolled across the
UC system, with approximately 11,677 ladder-rank and equivalent faculty (UCOP, 2020). For
this study, participants were full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty in the UC system.
Collectively, the UC senate faculty is approximately 35.7% women and 64.3% men (Advancing
Faculty Diversity Report, 2020). The gender data in the accountability report does not account
34
for non-conforming, non-binary gender identities. The UC senate faculty are 3.2%
Black/African/African American, 49.3% White, 22.4% Asian, 7.6% Hispanic/Latino(a), 0.3%
American Indian, 1.5% identifying with two or more races, and 5.3% unknown (UC, 2022).
All UC tenure or tenure-track faculty, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or rank, were
included. Tenured refers to an indefinite academic appointment in which termination can only be
considered under extraordinary circumstances, and tenure-track refers to a guaranteed
appointment based on the expectation that permanent, long-term employment will be granted if
the individual’s record meets specific advancement criteria (American Association of University
Professors, 2022). Both tenured and tenure-track faculty are a part of the academic senate. Senate
faculty fulfill shared-governance responsibilities established by the regents (UCOP, 2021). Non-
senate faculty were not included, as faculty outside the professorial series have varying research,
teaching, and service obligations than tenure or tenure-track faculty. Limiting the participants to
only tenure or tenure-track faculty ensures more consistent professorial series homogeneity
among the participant pool. In the recruitment process, participants were provided a link to a
Qualtrics website, which granted them access to the survey; Qualtrics is a web-based survey tool.
Sampling and Recruitment
Participants were recruited via UC campuses and by word of mouth, and data collection
began in September 2022 and ended in January 2023. A flyer with the QR code and link for
access to the survey was emailed to potential participants, and the flyer and survey link were
shared via social media on my personal Instagram and LinkedIn pages. Initial recruitment efforts
did not yield the minimum number of participants, so additional word-of-mouth outreach was
completed. I also sent the chair of the UC Academic Senate an email containing a copy of the
flyer and study information, asking them to share the survey via their faculty listserv to try and
35
reach the targeted number of participants. A copy of the flyer can be found in Appendix C, and
the sample email sent to UC faculty can be found in Appendix D. The survey consisted of 46
questions and took participants approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Data Collection
Upon approval of the institutional review board (IRB), I published the survey via
Qualtrics and then distributed the link to the survey via the methods outlined in the sampling and
recruitment section. Participants took an online survey about their perceptions of
microaggressions, sense of belonging, campus climate, the faculty advancement process, lack of
access to mentoring, SETs, research as barriers; demographic information such as age, ethnicity,
gender, professorial rank, number of years in professorial rank, and educational discipline were
also solicited. Before starting the survey, participants were provided an information sheet with
my contact information, the purpose of the study, a description of their involvement as a
participant, notice of confidentiality, as well as instructions on how to enter an opportunity
drawing for a gift card incentive; the opportunity drawing was optional. The information sheet
also notified participants of their right to opt out at any time. The information sheet provided can
be found in Appendix E. The survey questions can be found in Appendix F. The research
questions are as follows:
1. Among faculty in the University of California system, are microaggressions, sense of
belonging, campus climate, the advancement process, lack of access to mentorship,
student evaluations of teaching, and research perceived barriers?
2. Are there gender and ethnicity differences in the perceptions of barriers among
faculty in the UC system?
36
Instrumentation
All instruments can be found in Appendix F. To address microaggressions as a construct,
the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS) developed by Nadal (2011) was used in
this study. The REMS was developed based on the original taxonomy on racial microaggressions
presented by Sue et al. (2007) on microaggressions. It measures the extent to which individuals
experience microaggressions in their daily lives (Nadal, 2011). The REMS comprises six
subscales: assumptions of inferiority, second-class citizen and assumptions of criminality,
microinvalidations, exoticization/assumptions of similarity, environmental microaggressions,
and workplace/school microaggressions. The scale is reported to have an overall Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.90 (Nadal, 2011). For this study, the following two subscales were used:
microinvalidations (α = .888) and workplace/school microaggressions (α = .850) (Nadal, 2011).
The instrument consists of 12 questions about faculty experiences with microaggressions from
their colleagues, with five multiple-choice options ranging from Never to 10 or more times.
The instruments used for the sense of belonging scale were developed by Bollen and
Hoyle (1990) to measure an individual’s perceived group cohesion. The scale consists of two
subscales: sense of belonging and feelings of morale. For this study, only the scale for sense of
belonging was used. Validity and reliability for the scale are high, with a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .898 (Johnson et al., 2007). The scale consists of three questions with multiple-
choice options on a 6-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The scale
used for campus climate (Campbell-Whatley et al., 2015) yields a Cronbach’s alpha of (α =
0.69). It consists of 10 questions related to campus climate, also multiple-choice options on a 6-
point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
37
Four questions were asked to gauge faculty perceptions of the advancement process as a
potential barrier. One question had multiple-choice options on a 5-point scale to evaluate the
faculty’s perception of their rate of advancement, with options ranging from much slower than it
should be to much quicker than it should be. All other questions have multiple-choice options on
a 6-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The Ragins and Cotton (1991) instrument was used to gauge faculty access to mentoring.
The scale consists of five factors: access to mentoring, fear of initiating a relationship,
willingness of mentor, approval of others, and misinterpretation. Only the access to mentoring
factor (α = .86) was used in this study. The scale consists of four questions with multiple-choice
options on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Questions regarding faculty perceptions of the impact of teaching evaluations included
three questions. One question having multiple-choice options on a 5-point scale evaluating the
faculty’s perceptions of their teaching evaluations scores ranging from “much worse than they
should be” to “much better than they should be.” The two other questions have multiple-choice
options on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
The instrument to measure faculty perceptions of research as a barrier was adapted from
the 2017 Hagan and Walden scale. The scale consists of two subscales: research resources and
personal relevance of research. Only the research resources subscale (α = .79) was used for this
study. The subscale included nine items on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Data Analysis
The protocol used for this study was approved on September 9, 2022, by the University
of Southern California Institutional Review Board. The target goal for the number of participants
38
was 100; however, recruitment efforts only yielded 60 participants in the 4 months of
recruitment. After discussions with the dissertation chair and other committee members, I
decided to close the study and move forward. Limitations will be discussed further in Chapter
Five. Analysis was conducted using SPSS. Descriptive statistics for each independent and
dependent variable were analyzed and reported, including mean (M), standard deviation (SD),
and scale range. Reliability was also measured to determine internal consistency. As for
inferential statistics, seven two-way ANOVAs (one for each dependent variable) were conducted
to determine gender main effect, ethnicity main effect and gender by ethnicity interaction.
Researcher Background
As the primary researcher of this study, I understand the role I played in the development
and motivation to pursue this dissertation and the bias I may bring to interpreting the finding.
Currently, I serve professionally as a UC employee. In my role, I work very closely with faculty,
specifically with reviews and advancement. This role allows me first-hand knowledge of the
challenges faculty face during reviews. Of particular regard are the challenges women and
faculty of color challenges experience. This experience and recognizing the need to examine
practice and policy primarily motivated this research. It is important to acknowledge my own
challenges in navigating higher education in administration and as a student. Challenges are
often connected to my intersectionalities as a woman and person of color. I feel that this is also
relevant to my identity as a mother and how that role intersects with my professional identities.
These have all contributed to my interest in, and passion for, pursuing research in this area.
Through this research, I sought to investigate differentiated faculty experiences that can
contribute to and expand on what is currently known. My goal with the study was to inform new
39
and old policies and practices to equitably supports all faculty. This area of higher education
administration warrants better and more persistent attention.
While the potential for researcher bias was low given its quantitative methods, it is worth
noting that as a professional in higher education in a faculty-facing role, I might have made
certain assumptions based on prior professional experiences. For example, as a woman of color
in higher education, my experiences may shape how I view or perceive the experiences of faculty
who also identify with historically marginalized groups.
40
Chapter Four: Results
This study considered differentiating faculty experiences to determine if
microaggressions, sense of belonging, campus climate, the advancement process, lack of access
to mentorship, SETs, and research are factors that UC tenured and tenure-track faculty perceive
as barriers. Additionally, the study sought to identify gender and ethnicity differences in the
perceptions of these barriers. The following chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the
study results.
Participants
Participants were 60 full-time, tenured, or tenure-track UC faculty (36.2% assistant
professors, 26.7% associate professors, 34.5% full professors, 1.7% indicated “other”). Also,
77.6% of respondents identified as female, 17.2% identified as male, 1.7% self-described as trans
non-binary, and 3.4% preferred not to state. Lastly, 30.9% of participants identified as White,
25.5% as Latina(o), 18.2% as Asian, 16.4% as Black, and 9.1% as mixed.
Microaggressions, sense of belonging, campus climate, the advancement process, lack of
mentorship, STEs and research were the independent variables investigated as perceived barriers.
As represented in Table 1, mean responses for microaggressions (M = 1.80) reported below the
theoretical midpoint of 2.5, indicating that responses show low occurrences of microaggressions.
Mean responses for mentorship as a barrier (M = 3.03) also scored below the theoretical
midpoint at 3.5, showing that participants reported low opportunity for, and access to,
mentorship. Mean responses for the advancement process (M = 3.50), research (M = 3.49), and
SET (M = 3.48) as barriers are both reported at the theoretical midpoint. Participants report a
high sense of belonging (M = 4.51) and campus climate (M = 4.02).
41
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean SD Reliability Scale range
Microaggressions 52 1.80 .62 .88 1 = never, 4 = often
Sense of belonging 54 4.51 1.06 .80 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree
Campus climate 54 4.02 .82 .80 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree
Advancement
process
54 3.50 .97 .73 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree
Mentorship 50 3.03 1.38 .93 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree
Student evaluations
of teaching
56 3.48 1.08 .79 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree
Research 55 3.49 .91 .83 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree
Mean and variance analysis by gender were conducted for the seven dependent variables,
as reported in Table 2. It is important to note the low power of the analysis due to the low
number of males in the sample. Women reported higher occurrences of microaggressions (M =
1.82) than men; the p-value for microaggressions between gender groups indicates that the
difference is not significant, but the size of the effect (ES = .47) is medium according to Cohen's
effect size criteria (Salkind, 2008). For research as a barrier, there is no statistical significance in
differences between the two gender groups; however, women had higher responses for research
as a barrier to productivity (M = 3.49, p = .783). Women had less sense of belonging (M = 4.52,
p = .870) and a lower perception of their campus’ climate (M = 4.03, p = .432). Women also
reported less opportunity for, and access to, mentorship (M = 3.07, p = .557). Responses for
SETs were marginally significant in that women reported higher gender-related impact from
SETs (M = 3.55, p = 0.57) than did men. Responses for the advancement process as a barrier
42
were statistically significant (M = 3.65, p = .003) with women reporting higher responses
indicating the advancement process as a barrier. Unfortunately, the study only yielded one
participant who self-described as trans non-binary; therefore, it was not reported in the gender
data above. However, the self-describing participant was included in all other analyses.
Table 2
Sample, Mean, Standard Deviation and Significance for Responses by Gender
Female
N
Female
mean
Female
SD
Male
N
Male
mean
Male
SD
F Sig.
Microaggressions 41 1.82 .60 9 1.54 .59 1.60 .212
Sense of belonging 43 4.52 1.02 9 4.59 1.33 .02 .870
Campus climate 43 4.03 .72 9 4.25 1.05 .62 .432
Advancement process 43 3.65 .92 9 2.61 .76 10.04 .003*
Mentorship 39 3.07 1.41 9 2.77 .88 .35 .557
SETs 44 3.55 .94 10 2.85 1.41 3.77 .057
Research 43 3.49 .91 10 3.40 1.01 .07 .783
*p < .05
43
Results for Research Question 1
Multiple one-way analyses of variance by ethnicity were conducted for the seven
dependent variables. No statistical significance was found between groups for responses related
to microaggressions (p = .489), campus climate (p = .725), the advancement process (p = .308),
mentorship (p = .478), ethnicity impact on STEs (p = .502), or research as a barrier (p = .951).
Because of small cell sizes, the power of the F tests was extremely low; thus, descriptive
analyses follows.
Black faculty reported higher occurrences of microaggressions (M = 2.08, p = .489),
followed by Asian (M = 1.91), Latina(o) (M = 1.86), White (M = 1.62), and mixed (M = 1.56).
White faculty reported the highest sense of belonging (M = 4.98), with Black faculty reporting
the second highest (M = 4.52), followed by mixed (M = 4.4) and Latina(o) (M = 4.28). Asian
faculty reported lower sense of belonging than any other group (M = 3.92). Significance for
between-group differences is considered borderline significance (p = .157).
For campus climate, White faculty reported higher perceptions than did any other group
(M = 4.19), followed by Asian (M = 4.07), Latina(o) (M =3.93), Black (M = 3.83), and mixed
faculty (M = 3.68). Mixed faculty reported higher responses for the advancement process as a
barrier (M = 3.95), followed by Latina(o) (M = 3.87), Black (M = 3.32), White (M = 3.30), and
Asian (M = 3.22).
The data on mentorship show that Latina(o) faculty reported the lowest responses for
opportunity and access to mentorship (M = 3.93), followed by Asian (M = 3.65), Black (M =
3.00), mixed (M = 2.87), and White faculty (M = 2.68). Black and Latina(o) faculty reported
higher ethnicity-related impact from student evaluations of teaching (M = 3.75), followed by
mixed (M = 3.50), Asian (M = 3.22), and White faculty (M = 3.15). Black faculty indicated
44
higher responses for research as a barrier (M = 3.69) than any other group, followed by Asian
faculty (M = 3.60), mixed faculty (M = 3.48), Latina(o) faculty (M = 3.42), and White faculty
(M = 3.40). It is important to note the low power of the analysis due to small sample for this
analysis.
Results for Research Question 2
Table 3 presents the results for the second research question.
Table 3
Sample, Mean, Standard Deviation and Significance for Responses by Ethnicity
Black Asian White Latina(o) Mixed F Sig
n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD
Micro. 6 2.08 .73 9 1.91 .64 17 1.62 .51 14 1.86 .75 4 1.56 .40 .87 .489
SOB 7 4.52 1.42 9 3.92 1.22 17 4.98 .70 14 4.28 .98 5 4.4 1.27 1.74
.157
Camp.
Clim.
7 3.83 1.29 9 4.07 .70 17 4.19 .58 14 3.93 .98 5 3.68 .48 .51
.725
Advmt. 7 3.32 1.17 9 3.22 1.14 17 3.30 .64 14 3.87 1.12 5 3.95 .54 1.23
.308
Ment. 6 3.00 1.56 8 3.65 1.41 16 2.68 1.30 14 3.93 1.28 4 2.87 1.54 .89 .478
SET 9 3.75 1.46 9 3.22 .97 17 3.15 .81 14 3.75 1.18 5 3.50 1.11 .84 .502
Resear. 8 3.69 1.05 9 3.60 .90 17 3.40 .80 14 3.42 1.14 5 3.48 .84 .17 .951
45
46
Chapter Five: Discussion
It is clear in the academic literature that the experiences of women and racially
minoritized faculty are more complex and differentiated than others. This study investigated the
specific components of the academic environment that create differentiated experiences, or are
affected by these differentiated experiences, with regard to faculty. This research used
quantitative methods to explore microaggressions, sense of belonging, lack of access to
mentorship, SETs, campus climate, the advancement process, and research as perceived barriers.
It sought to determine gender and ethnicity differences in perceptions of those barriers. Data
were collected from tenured or tenure-track UC faculty.
Findings
Analyses by gender and ethnicity yielded no statistical significance between groups.
Because the number of participants was low, the statistical power of the analyses ran is also low.
It is expected that low power negatively affects the ability to yield statistically significant results.
Preliminary analyses indicated that the seven study variables (microaggressions, sense of
belonging, campus climate, the advancement process, access to mentorship, SETs, and research)
were perceived, by some, as being barriers.
Our findings indicate that women perceive microaggressions, the advancement process,
access to mentorship, and research as barriers more often than men. Women also reported less
sense of belonging and lower perceptions of campus climate than men. With regard to SETs,
marginal statistical significance was found between gender groups, with women reporting higher
barriers associated with SETs. This means that women participants are more likely to experience
microaggressions, and to perceive the advancement process, access to mentorship, and research
47
as barriers more often than men. Women are also more likely to perceive their gender as
affecting their SETs.
Analyses based on ethnicity indicate that of the seven study variables, Black faculty
reported higher occurrences of microaggressions and research as barriers than any other faculty.
Black faculty also reported the second-lowest perceptions of campus climate and highest
perceptions of the ethnicity-related impact on SETs. Black faculty reported the advancement
process as a barrier more than any other group. This means that Black faculty experience
microaggressions and ethnicity-related impact on SETs and perceive research and the
advancement process as a barrier more than any other ethnicity reported.
Latina(o)’s also shared the highest reported ethnicity-related impacts to SETs and
reported the lowest reports of access to mentorship. Asian faculty reported lower sense of
belonging than any other ethnicity group. White faculty reported the lowest occurrence of
microaggressions and the highest sense of belonging and campus climate. They were the second
lowest to report the advancement process as a barrier, the lowest perceptions of access to
mentorship as a barrier, the lowest gender-related impact of SETs, and the lowest perceptions of
research as a barrier.
Overall, the results revealed that, of faculty in the UC system who participated in this
study, women and racially minoritized faculty have the highest reporting of barriers. Further,
White faculty reported the fewest barriers of any group.
Limitations and Delimitations
The most restricting limitation of this study is the small sample. Because recruitment
efforts yielded only 60 participants, the power of our analyses was significantly affected and
made the study results non-generalizable to the UC system, as was originally intended. Also,
48
because the study gathered data from UC faculty, the findings represent only UC tenured and
tenure-track faculty and cannot be applied to faculty in other higher education systems. Also, the
tenured or tenure-track faculty criteria were narrow, making the study not all-inclusive and
representative of all UC faculty titles and, thus, experiences. Additionally, it is critical to
recognize the limitations due to the small sample size of men, trans, gender non-conforming, and
non-binary participants. Because this study uses a survey to collect data, the limitations related to
working with self-reported data are relevant. As with any survey data, there is a small margin for
subjectivity in the participants’ interpretation of the questions. Lastly, it is important to note that
the research cannot prove a cause-and-effect relationship between gender, ethnicity, and any of
the seven variables. Remaining mindful of these limitations is important when considering the
interpretations and results produced.
Implications for Practice and Recommendations
This section will be organized based on implications for practice for each variable,
followed by collective recommendations for policy and future research. The results of this study
confirm that racially minoritized faculty experience the academy differently than those who are
not, and elements of those experiences are perceived as barriers to overall success and
productivity. It is the responsibility of the institution’s administration and department leaders to
ensure that differentiated faculty experiences are acknowledged. They are also responsible for
establishing strategies to dismantle policies, practices, and systems that perpetuate these
experiences to create equitable environments for all faculty. Part of that process must be to
examine structures, or lack thereof, that do not work to meet these faculty members’ needs. The
results of this study inform practice, policy, and research in several ways.
49
Microaggressions
When considering the association between experience and impact, as noted in the
literature, microaggressions, negatively impact those that experience them. They work to demean
a person’s racial identity (Pittman, 2012; Sue et al., 2007) and challenge faculty’s intellect,
competence, and authority (Pittman, 2012), for racially minoritized faculty, in ways that do not
affect White faculty. From the data reported in this study, faculty in the UC system, particularly
racially minoritized faculty and women, report higher occurrences of microaggressions. Offering
constituency-wide training to help others better understand types of microaggressions. UCOP
Institutional Research and Academic Planning administered campus climate surveys in the past;
however, microaggressions were not included as a focal point. Having a survey that focuses
solely on microaggressions or training that includes examples of what microaggressions
(microinvalidations, microassaults, and microinsults) look like in faculty-faculty, faculty-student,
and faculty-staff interactions might prove helpful.
Sense of Belonging and Campus Climate
In the current study, women reported lower sense of belonging and lower perceptions of
campus climate than men. Because both sense of belonging and campus climate are essential to
positive perceptions and outcomes (Settles et al., 2006), the findings of this survey could
stimulate interest in addressing the elements that contribute to low perceptions of campus
climate. Because sense of belonging and campus climate are related to environmental
components specific to each campus, further research is needed to provide more specific
suggestions; however, campuses should consider the examination of their campus climate with
regard to gender and ethnicity among faculty at the campus level, as well as at the departmental
level to identify the detailed problem points, to develop a proper strategy to address them.
50
Additionally, a comparative analysis of campus climate and sense of belonging among tenured
and tenure-track faculty and other faculty titles on campus may also provide insight into proper
strategy development.
The Advancement Process and Research
The UC system has policies to mitigate inequities with regard to the advancement process
and research productivity, such as the stop-the-clock policy, which allows faculty to stop the
tenure clock for 1 year per request for up to 2 years (UCOP, 2015). However, policies like these
may not be sufficient in addressing inequities. Antecol et al. (2018) found that stop-the-clock
policies substantially reduced female tenure rates while substantially increasing male tenure
rates. Antecol et al. argued that while gender-neutral stop-the-clock policies for tenure
temporarily stopped the research and publication expectations for both men and women, each
might have spent that time differently, resulting in the differences in tenure rates between male
and female faculty who stopped the clock at some point. Given that women and racially
minoritized faculty reported the advancement process and research as perceived barriers, closer
attention to and further investigation of the specific components of the advancement process and
research that attribute to the perception of it as a barrier are needed.
Mentorship
As reported in Chapter Four, mean responses for mentorship as a barrier showed that
overall, participants reported low opportunities for and access to mentorship. It is important to
note that some UC campuses have established mentorship programs for faculty. For example,
UC San Francisco’s faculty affairs website reports that a climate survey conducted in 2011 and
2017 found that the faculty on their campus are highly satisfied with the access to and quality of
mentorship that has been made available by their campus (UCSF, 2023). An established faculty
51
mentoring program has been correlated with better recruitment and retention, high levels of
engagement, faculty advancement, and early career success (Shaw & Abbott, 2018). Because of
this and this study’s results, the development and implementation of faculty mentorship
programs should be prioritized at all UC campuses. It might also be recommended that a deeper
dive into UCSF’s mentorship would provide an exemplar for other campuses.
Student Evaluations of Teaching
Recent studies of student evaluations of teaching widely suggest biases against faculty of
color and women than any other groups (Wang & Gonzalez, 2020; Shreffler et al., 2019). The
data gathered in this study suggest that women and faculty of color report higher gender and
ethnicity-related impact from SETs. Because of these findings, evaluating how SETs are
gathered, interpreted, considered, and used in faculty reviews, and promotion is needed to ensure
these practices are equitable and align with accounting for biases.
Future Research
Additional quantitative data should be collected from UC faculty to increase the number
of responses obtained. This would provide a more powerful analysis that could yield potentially
statistically significant data that could be more generalizable. It is also recommended that future
research include two-way ANOVAs to test for differences in the effects of the independent
variables on each dependent variable. Also, contextual data gathered via qualitative research is
needed to provide further insight into individual faculty narratives for a deeper understanding of
faculty experiences. It is particularly recommended that future research focus on the lived
experiences of these faculty members as they navigate academic spaces, advancement,
interactions with students and colleagues, administration and mentorship and community with
one another. Additionally, it is strongly recommended that future research gather and focus on
52
trans, non-binary, and gender non-confirming experiences as well; doing so is critical to building
truly inclusive and equitable academic environments for tenured and tenure-track faculty within
the UC system.
Conclusion
This study looked to gather data that provide additional insight into the experiences of
tenured and tenure-track faculty in the UC system. Results revealed that, of faculty in the UC
system who participated in this study, women and racially minoritized faculty have the highest
reporting of barriers, with White faculty reporting the fewest barriers of any group. These results
help identify the specific components of the UC system that create barriers and differentiated
experiences for women and faculty of color. Further investigation into these components is
critical to creating equity for all faculty in the academy.
53
References
Allen, J. L., Huggins-Hoyt, K. Y., Holosko, M. J., & Briggs, H. E. (2017). African American
social work faculty. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(3), 309–319.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517701578
American Association of University Professors. (2022). Tenure.
https://www.aaup.org/issues/tenure
Andersen, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. PS, Political
Science & Politics, 30(2), 216–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/420499
Anderson, K. J., & Smith, G. (2005). Students’ preconceptions of professors: Benefits and
barriers according to ethnicity and gender. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,
27(2), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986304273707
Antecol, B., Bedard, K., & Stearns, J. (2018). Equal but inequitable: Who benefits from gender-
neutral tenure clock stopping policies? The American Economic Review, 108(9), 2420–
2441. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160613
Asher, S. R., & Weeks, M. S. (2014). Loneliness and belongingness in the college years. In R. J.
Coplan & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on
social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (1st. ed., pp. 283–301). John Wiley
& Sons.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Berk, R. A. (2017). Microaggressions trilogy: Part 2. Microaggressions in the academic
workplace. Journal of Faculty Development, 31(2), 69.
54
Bertrand Jones, B., & Osborne-Lampkin, T. (2013). Black female faculty success and early
career professional development. Negro Educational Review, 64(1-4), 59–75.
Blackwell, L. V., Snyder, L. A., & Mavriplis, C. (2009). Diverse faculty in STEM fields:
Attitudes, performance, and fair treatment. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
2(4), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016974
Blood, E. A., Ullrich, N. J., Hirshfeld-Becker, D. R., Seely, E. W., Connelly, M. T., Warfield, C.
A., & Emans, S. J. (2012). Academic women faculty: Are they finding the mentoring
they need? Journal of Women’s Health, 21(11), 1201–1208.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2012.3529
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical
examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/69.2.479
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bonner, F. A., II (2014). The critical need for faculty mentoring: Say brother, can you spare the
time? In F. A. Bonner, II., A. F. Marbley, F. Tuitt, P. A. Robinson, R. M. Banda, & R. L.
Hughes (Eds.), Black Faculty in the Academy (pp. 133–146). Routledge.
Boring, A. (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public
Economics, 145, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006
Bruner, D. W., Dunbar, S., Higgins, M., & Martyn, K. (2016). Benchmarking and gap analysis of
faculty mentorship priorities and how well they are met. Nursing Outlook, 64(4), 321–
331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2016.02.008
55
Bustillos, L. T., & Siqueiros, M. (2018). Left out: How exclusion in California’s colleges and
universities hurts our values, our students, and our economy. Campaign for College
Opportunity.
California State University Los Angeles. (2022). Faculty handbook.
https://www.calstatela.edu/FacultyAffairs/retention-tenure-and-promotion
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Research. In Cambridge English dictionary online.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/research
Chang, M. J., Milem, J. F., & Antonio, A. L. (2011). Campus climate and diversity. In V. Torres,
J. H. Schuh, & S. R. Jones (Ed.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp.
43–58). Jossey-Bass.
Chávez, K., & Mitchell, K. M. (2020). Exploring bias in student evaluations: Gender, race, and
ethnicity. PS, Political Science & Politics, 53(2), 270–274.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001744
Chew, L. D., Watanabe, J. M., Buchwald, D., & Lessler, D. S. (2003). Junior faculty’s
perspectives on mentoring. Academic Medicine, 78(6), 652.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200306000-00022
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is
there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education.
Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033005026
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qg26k
56
De Los Reyes, & Uddin, L. Q. (2021). Revising evaluation metrics for graduate admissions and
faculty advancement to dismantle privilege. Nature Neuroscience, 24(6), 755–758.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00836-2
Eagan, M. K., Jr., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with
faculty productivity. Journal of Higher Education (Columbus, Ohio), 86(6), 923–954.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0034
Edalgo, S., High, K. A., Lichtenstein, G., Lee, C. M., & Main, J. B. (2021, July 26–29).
Exploring how faculty mentoring influences faculty productivity [Paper presentation].
ASEE Virtual Annual Conference.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education.
Association for the Study of Higher Eduacation.
Garvey, J. C., Squire, D. D., Stachler, B., & Rankin, S. (2018). The impact of campus climate on
queer-spectrum student academic success. Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(2), 89–105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2018.1429978
Glass, C. R., Kociolek, E., Wongtrirat, R., Lynch, R. J., & Cong, S. (2015). Uneven Experiences:
The Impact of Student-Faculty Interactions on International Students’ Sense of
Belonging. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 353–367.
https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v5i4.400
Hagan, J. L., Armbruster, P., & Ballard, R. (2019). Barriers to research among faculty at a health
sciences university. American Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 44–48.
57
Hagan, J., & Walden, M. (2017). Development and evaluation of the barriers to nurses’
participation in research questionnaire at a large academic pediatric hospital. Clinical
Nursing Research, 26(2), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773815609889
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., & Oe, H. (2002). Childhood antecedents of adult sense of
belonging. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(7), 793–801.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.2007
Haynes-Baratz, Metinyurt, T., Li, Y. L., Gonzales, J., & Bond, M. A. (2021). Bystander training
for faculty: A promising approach to tackling microaggressions in the academy. New
Ideas in Psychology, 63, Article 100882.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100882
Hiraldo, P. (2010). The role of critical race theory in higher education. The Vermont Connection,
31(1), 7.
Johnson, D. R., Soldner, M., Leonard, J. B., Alvarez, P., Inkelas, K. K., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T.,
& Longerbeam, S. D. (2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year
undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054
Keck School of Medicine of USC. (2016). Tenured, tenure track, clinical, and research faculty
appointments and promotion. http://keck.usc.edu
Ladson-Billings. (2005). The evolving role of critical race theory in educational
scholarship. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 115–119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341024
58
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700104
Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Hicks, J. A., Kamble, S., Baumeister, R. F., & Fincham, F. D.
(2013). To belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1418–1427.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499186
Larson, C. L. & Ovando, C. J. (2001). The color of bureaucracy: The politics of equity in
multicultural school communities. Wadsworth.
Leslie, K., Lingard, L., & Whyte, S. (2005). Junior faculty experiences with informal mentoring.
Medical Teacher, 27(8), 693–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500271217
Lewis, J. A., & Neville, H. A. (2015). Construction and initial validation of the gendered racial
microaggressions scale for black women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 289–
302. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000062
Lynn, M., & Dixson, A. D. (2013). Handbook of critical race theory in education. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203155721
MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. N. (2014). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in
student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291–303.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.
59
May, H., & Bridger, K. (2010). Developing and embedding inclusive policy and practice in
higher education. Higher Education Academy.
Mengel, Sauermann, J., & Zölitz, U. (2019). Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the
European Economic Association, 17(2), 535–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx057
Meyer, K. A. (2012). The influence of online teaching on faculty productivity. Innovative Higher
Education, 37(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9183-y
Mitchell, K. M., & Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS, Political Science &
Politics, 51(3), 648–652. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651800001X
Moody, & Lewis, J. A. (2019). Gendered racial microaggressions and traumatic stress symptoms
among Black women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 201–214.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319828288
Murray, H. G. (2007). Low-inference teaching behaviors and college teaching effectiveness:
Recent developments and controversies. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart. The scholarship of
teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 145–200).
Springer.
Museus, Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2018). How culturally engaging campus environments influence
sense of belonging in college: An examination of differences between White students and
students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 467–483.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000069
Nadal, K. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction,
reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 470–480.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025193
60
Newman, C. B., Wood, J. L., & Harris, F., III. (2015). Black men’s perceptions of sense of
belonging with faculty members in community colleges. The Journal of Negro
Education, 84(4), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.4.0564
Novara, E. A., & Novara, V. J. (2017). Exhibits as scholarship: Strategies for acceptance,
documentation, and evaluation in academic libraries. The American Archivist, 80(2),
355–372. https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-80.2.355
O’Keeffe. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal,
47(4), 605–613.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003323
Oxford University Press. (2011). Oxford Learner’s Dictionary.
Periyakoil, C., Chaudron, L., Hill, E. V., Pellegrini, V., Neri, E., & Kraemer, H. C. (2020).
Common types of gender-based microaggressions in medicine. Academic Medicine,
95(3), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003057
Pierce, C. M., Carew, J. V., Pierce-Gonzalez, D., & Wills, D. (1978). An experiment in racism:
TV commercials. Education and Urban Society, 10(1), 61–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001312457701000105
Pietilä, M., & Pinheiro, R. (2020). Reaching for different ends through tenure track—
Institutional logics in university career systems. Higher Education, 81(6), 1197–1213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00606-2
Potter, H., Higgins, G. E., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2011). The influence of gender, race/ethnicity, and
faculty perceptions on scholarly productivity in criminology/criminal justice. Journal of
61
Criminal Justice Education, 22(1), 84–101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517653
Pittman, C. T. (2012). Racial microaggressions: The narrative of African American Faculty at a
predominantly white university. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(1), 82–92.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived
barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 939–951.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256398
Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive approach
to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(4), 262–
274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014018
Russell, J. A., Brock, S., & Rudisill, M. E. (2019). Recognizing the impact of bias in faculty
recruitment, retention, and advancement processes. Kinesiology Review, 8(4), 291–295.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0043
Ryan, C., Chun, H., & Iwamoto, D. (2019). Perceived sense of belonging of part-time faculty
within institutions of Higher Education. Journal of Education and Culture Studies, 3(2),
71. https://doi.org/10.22158/jecs.v3n2p71
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Savage, H. E., Karp, R. S., & Logue, R. (2004). Faculty mentorship at colleges and universities.
College Teaching, 52(1), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.1.21-24
Settles, I. H., Cortina, L. M., Malley, J., & Stewart, A. J. (2006). The climate for women in
academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 30(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00261.x
62
Shaw, P. A., & Abbott, M. (2018). Faculty mentorship: Real time intervention. Nurse Educator,
43(5), 229. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000477
Shreffler, M. B., Shreffler, J. R., & Murfree, J. R. (2019). Barriers to advancement of female
faculty in higher education: An examination of student evaluations of teaching, work-
family conflict and perceived organizational support. Journal of Higher Education
Theory and Practice, 19(8), 72–85.
Stanley, C. A. (2006). Coloring the academic landscape: Faculty of color breaking the silence in
predominantly White colleges and universities. American Educational Research
Journal, 43(4), 701–736. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043004701
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118924
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students (2nd ed). Routledge.
Sue, D. W. (Ed.). (2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and
impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation
microaggressions: Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. Counseling the
Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice, 5, 105–130.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.62.4.271
63
Sue, D. W., Rivera, D. P., Watkins, N. L., Kim, R. H., Kim, S., & Williams, C. D. (2011). Racial
dialogues: Challenges faculty of color face in the classroom. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 17(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024190
Taylor, E. (2009). The foundations of critical race theory in education: An introduction. In E.
Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson Billings (Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in
education (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
Turner. (2003). Incorporation and Marginalization in the Academy: From Border toward Center
for Faculty of Color? Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 112–125.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934703253689
University of California. (2022a). Bylaws of academic senate.
https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/bylaws-regulations/index.html
University of California. (2022b). UC Workforce diversity.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/uc-workforce-
diversity
University of California Office of the President. (n.d.). About UCOP.
https://www.ucop.edu/about/
University of California Office of the President. (2020). Diversity: Faculty and other academic
personnel. https://www.ucop.edu/faculty-diversity/
University of California Office of the President. (n.d.). Academic personnel and programs.
https://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/academic-personnel-policy/policy-
issuances-and-guidelines/revised-apm-133-210-220-760.html
University of California Riverside. (2016). Academic personnel review procedures for senate
faculty. https://academicpersonnel.ucr.edu
64
University of California San Francisco. (2023). Mentoring, office of faculty and academic
affairs. https://facultyacademicaffairs.ucsf.edu/faculty-life/mentoring
University of California, Berkeley. (2022). Berkeley career center.
https://career.berkeley.edu/PhDs/PhDtransition
Wang, L., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2005). Racial/ethnic and national origin bias in SET. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(4), 843–855.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2019-1793
Wasburn, M. H. (2007). Mentoring women faculty: An instrumental case study of strategic
collaboration. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(1), 57–72.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611260601037389
Watanabe, T., & Mier, T. (2020, June 11). USC removes name of Rufus von KleinSmid, a
eugenics leader, from prominent building. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-11/usc-removes-name-of-former-
president-rufus-von-kleinsmid-a-supporter-of-eugenics-from-prominent-building
Welton, O., Owens, D. R., & Zamani-Gallaher, E. M. (2018). Anti-racist change: A conceptual
framework for educational institutions to take systemic action. Teachers College Record,
120(14), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812001402
Wright-Mair, R. (2020). Longing to belong: Mentoring relationships as a pathway to fostering a
sense of belonging for racially minoritized faculty at predominantly white institutions.
Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity, 6(2), 2–31.
Yang, Y., & Carroll, D. W. (2018). Gendered microaggressions in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Leadership and research in Education, 4, 28–45.
65
Zdanowicz, C. (2021, August 9). A rock that students call a symbol of racism is removed from
University of Wisconsin. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/us/chamberlin-rock-
removed-university-of-wisconsin-trnd/index.html
66
Appendix A: Keck School of Medicine at USC’s Faculty Process for Appointment and
Promotions
67
Appendix B: University of California Riverside, Normative Time at Step Chart
68
Appendix C: Research Study Flyer
69
Appendix D: Email Communication Sample
Dear Faculty,
My name is Juanita Jackson, and I am a doctoral student at USC’s Rossier School of Education.
My dissertation research study involves investigating barriers for tenured and tenure-track
faculty in the UC system. The purpose of this study is to understand the University of
California’s tenure and tenure-track faculty perceptions of barriers. We hope to gain better
insight into understanding variables that affect faculty productivity and advancement. You are
invited as a possible participant because you are over the age of 18, and a tenured or tenure-track
faculty member in the University of California system.One participant will win a $100 amazon
gift card! Below is the link to the Qualtrics survey:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_aWrQbs8ckvLdGIK
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me:
Juanita Jackson
Email: juanitaj@usc.edu
Thank you,
Juanita
70
Appendix E: Information Sheet
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Perceptions of Barriers for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in the UC
System
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Juanita Jackson, Ed.D. Candidate
FACULTY ADVISOR: Sheila Banuelos, EdD.
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand the University of California’s tenure and tenure-track
faculty perceptions of barriers, and ethnicity and gender-differentiated experiences of those
barriers. We hope to gain better insight into understanding variables that affect faculty
productivity and advancement. You are invited as a possible participant because you are over the
age of 18, and a tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the University of California system.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to take a 15-minute online survey. The survey is
confidential, and you may choose to stop participating at any time.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
After completion of the survey, you may choose to enter an opportunity drawing for a $100
amazon gift card, by including your email address at the end of the survey. If you are the selected
winner, you will be notified via email.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The survey is confidential, and the data will be collected anonymously using Qualtrics. The
members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
All digital data once gathered will remain in a password protected Google drive on a password
protected Mac laptop. Only the principal investigator will have access to the laptop. The results
of this study will be kept indefinitely and may be used for presentation at professional
conferences or for publication in peer-edited journals; however, identities of all research
participants will remain anonymous.
71
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the researcher at juanitaj@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
72
Appendix F: Questionnaire
UC Faculty Perceptions of Barriers
Start of Block: Consent
Q59 Information Sheet for Exempt Research Title: UC Faculty Perceptions of Barriers
Principal Investigator: Juanita Jackson, EdD Candidate
Faculty Advisor: Sheila Banuelos, EdD.
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to understand the University of California’s tenure and
tenure-track faculty perceptions of barriers, and ethnicity and gender-differentiated experiences
of those barriers. We hope to gain better insight into understanding variables that affect faculty
productivity and advancement. You are invited as a possible participant because you are over the
age of 18, and a tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the University of California system.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to take a 15-minute online survey. The
survey is anonymous, and you may choose to stop participating at any time.
Payment/Compensation for Participation
After completion of the survey, you may choose to enter an opportunity drawing for a
$100 amazon gift card, by entering your email address via a link provided at the end of the
survey. If you are the selected winner, you will be notified via email.
73
Confidentiality
The survey is anonymous, and the data will be collected anonymously using Qualtrics.
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. All digital data
once gathered will remain in a password protected Google drive on a password protected Mac
laptop. Only the principal investigator will have access to the laptop. The results of this study
will be kept indefinitely and may be used for presentation at professional conferences or for
publication in peer-edited journals; however, identities of all research participants will remain
anonymous.
Investigator Contact Information
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the researcher at
juanitaj@usc.edu
IRB Contact
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.
I have carefully read and/or I have had the terms used in this consent form and their
significance explained to me. By clicking the consent button below, I agree that I am at least 18
years of age and consent to participate in this project.
• Yes, take me to the survey (1)
• I do not want to participate in this survey (2)
74
Skip To: End of Survey If Q60 = I do not want to participate in this survey
End of Block: Consent
Start of Block:
1. Are you currently employed as a full-time, tenured or tenure-track, faculty member
within the University of California system?
• Yes (1)
• No (2)
Skip To: End of Survey If Q1 = No
2. What is your current professorial rank?
• Assistant Professor (tenure-track; 1)
• Associate Professor (tenured; 2)
• Full Professor (Step I–V; 3)
• Full Professor (Step VI–IX; 4)
• Distinguished Professor (5)
• Emeritus (6)
• Other (7) ________________________________________________
3. What is your gender?
• Female (1)
• Gender non-conforming (2)
• Male (3)
• Non-binary (4)
• Prefer not to state (5)
• Prefer to self-describe (6) ______________________________________
4. What is your ethnicity?
• Black/African American (1)
• Asian/Pacific Islander (2)
• Hispanic or Latina/o/x (3)
• Native American or American Indian (4)
• White (5)
• Mixed Race (6)
• Prefer not to state (7)
• Other (please specify below; 8) _________________________________
75
5. In what age range do you fall within?
• 25–34 (1)
• 35–44 (2)
• 45–54 (3)
• 55–64 (4)
• 65–74 (5)
• 75–84 (6)
• 85 or older (7)
• Prefer not to state (8)
6. At which UC campus are you employed?
• UC Davis
• UC Berkely
• UC San Francisco
• UC Merced
• UC Santa Cruz
• UC Los Angeles
• UC Riverside
• UC Santa Barbara
• UC San Diego
• UC Irvine
7. How many years have you been in your current professorial rank?
• 0–1 (1)
• 1–2 (2)
• 2–3 (3)
• 3–4 (4)
• 4–5 (5)
• 5–6 (6)
• 6–7 (7)
• 7–8 (8)
• 8–9 (9)
• 9–10 (10)
• 10 or more (11)
8. Which category does your discipline fall within?
• Architecture (1)
• Arts (2)
• Business (3)
76
• Education (4)
• Engineering (5)
• Health/Medical (6)
• Humanities (7)
• Biological Sciences (8)
• Social Science (9)
• Physical Sciences (10)
• Technology (11)
• Other (12) ________________________________________________
Start of Block: Teaching Evaluations
The following questions are about your perception of how you are, or have been,
impacted by student evaluations of your teaching.
9. I feel that my student evaluation scores are
• Much worse than they should be (1)
• Somewhat worse than they should be (2)
• Exactly what they should be (3)
• Somewhat better than they should be (4)
• Much better than they should be (5)
10. I feel that my gender has, or has had, a negative impact on how students evaluate me.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
11. I feel that my ethnicity has, or has had, a negative impact on how students evaluate
me.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
77
12. I feel that student evaluation scores have been, either currently or in the past, a barrier
(significant or minor) to my professional advancement.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
End of Block: Teaching Evaluations
Start of Block: Research
The following questions are meant to gauge your perceptions of barriers to research
productivity
13. I feel the following create, or have created barriers to my research productivity (6-
point Likert from strongly disagree to strongly agree).
• Lack of time for me to do research (1)
• Lack of financial or other resources to facilitate research (2)
• Lack of institutional research infrastructure (3)
• Lack of availability of experienced research mentors (4)
• Lack of incentive/reward to do research (5)
• Lack of research knowledge or skills (6)
• Lack of leadership support (7)
• Lack of research training opportunities (8)
• Lack of administrative/clerical support for research grant submission (9)
End of Block: Research
Start of Block: Faculty Advancement Process
The following questions are meant to gauge your perception of the faculty advancement
process (merit and promotion process), as a potential barrier
14. I feel that my advancement progress has been
• Much slower than it should be (1)
78
• Somewhat slower than it should be (2)
• Exactly what it should be (3)
• Somewhat quicker than it should be (4)
• Much quicker than it should be (5)
15. I feel that my gender has, or has had, a negative impact on my advancement as
faculty.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
16. I feel that my ethnicity has, or has had, a negative impact on my advancement as
faculty.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
17. I feel that policies or practices involved within the advancement process, have
created, either currently or in the past, barriers (significant or minor) to my
professional advancement.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
End of Block: Faculty Advancement Process
79
Start of Block: Sense of Belonging
The following questions are about your sense of belonging at your institution. Sense of
belonging can be defined as feelings of connectedness, validation, acceptance, support,
affirmation, and mattering.
18. I feel a sense of belonging to the campus community.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
19. I feel that I am a contributing member of the campus community.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
20. I see myself as part of the campus community.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
End of Block: Sense of Belonging
Start of Block: Campus Climate
The following questions are looking to gauge your perception of your institution’s
campus climate. Climate is defined as current attitudes, behaviors, practices and standards of
80
staff, students, and faculty toward access for inclusion, level of respect for individual and group
needs, abilities, and potential.
21. I feel welcome on this campus.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
22. The campus climate is positive and sensitive to diversity.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
23. I have been harassed on campus.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
24. The University’s faculty is diverse.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
25. There are numerous efforts to increase diversity on this campus.
81
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
26. Faculty respect me as a professional.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
27. Faculty recognize that I have important ideas to contribute
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
28. Accessibility to campus facilities is good.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
29. I feel socially accepted by my department.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
82
30. In my department, if I work hard, I’m almost assured of being rewarded.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
End of Block: Campus Climate
Start of Block: Microaggressions
The following questions are looking to determine your experience with microaggressions.
In brief, microaggressions are defined as
brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether
intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights,
invalidations, and insults to an individual or group because of their marginalized status in
society. (Sue, 2010. p. 124)
31. I have been told by a colleague that people should not think about race anymore.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
32. I have been told by a colleague that she/they/he were “color blind.”
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
83
33. I have been told by a colleague that people of color do not experience racism
anymore.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
34. A colleague of a different racial group has stated that there is no difference between
the two of us.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
35. I have been told by a colleague that I should not complain about race anymore.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
36. I have been told by a colleague that that people of all racial groups experience the
same obstacles.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
37. I have been told by a colleague that I complain about race too much.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
84
38. A colleague has been unfriendly or unwelcoming toward me because of my race.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
39. My opinion was overlooked in a group discussion because of my race.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
40. I was ignored at work because of my race.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
41. A colleague has assumed that my work would be inferior to people of other racial
groups.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
42. A colleague has treated me differently than White co-workers.
• Never (1)
• Rarely (2)
• Sometimes (3)
• Often (4)
• Not applicable, because I am White (5)
End of Block: Microaggressions
Start of Block: Access to Mentoring
85
The following questions are looking to determine your perceptions of your access to
mentorship. Mentorship is defined as: “The process by which a faculty member, usually of
higher rank and often well-accomplished, is involved in helping the development of a more
junior-level faculty member”
43. I am or have been prevented from obtaining a mentorship relationship because of a
lack of opportunity to meet potential mentors.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
44. I am or have been prevented from obtaining a mentorship relationship because of the
lack of opportunity to develop a relationship with potential mentors.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
45. I am or have been prevented from obtaining a mentorship relationship because of a
shortage of potential mentors.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
86
46. I am or have been prevented from initiating a relationship with potential mentors,
because there is a lack of access to potential mentors.
• Strongly disagree (1)
• Disagree (2)
• Somewhat disagree (3)
• Somewhat agree (4)
• Agree (5)
• Strongly agree (6)
End of Block: Access to Mentoring
Start of Block: End of Survey
Thank you for your participation!
To participate in the opportunity drawing for the $100 gift card, please provide your email
address via the link below:
ttps://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_88oKNoaoOrdYJH8
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the principal investigator:
Juanita Jackson
juanitaj@usc.edu
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: End of Survey
Q1. Enter Email Address for $100 Amazon Gift Card Opportunity Drawing
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Women in academic leadership: the systemic struggles and representation of Latinx women in higher education
PDF
Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making
PDF
How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs
PDF
First-generation, low-income Latina students and cultural capital: a case study for academic advisors
PDF
Part-time non-tenure track faculty, motivation, and departmental governance: a grounded theory approach
PDF
The work identity of full‐time non‐tenure‐track faculty at a four year research university
PDF
Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity
PDF
Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit
PDF
College readiness and transitional experiences: the factors that contribute to first-generation Latino students’ persistence and retention to achieve higher education degrees
PDF
Supporting non-tenure-track faculty in a physical therapy program: a case study
PDF
Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students
PDF
The mid-career void: Understanding the path from associate to full professor
PDF
How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?
PDF
Developing effective mentoring programs for non-tenure track faculty
PDF
Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation
PDF
Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions
PDF
Community college faculty member perspectives of workforce development-oriented public-private partnerships
PDF
Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college
PDF
Chameleons and kungas: the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members in their transitions to academic service
PDF
Part-time and time faculty conceptualizations of academic community: a case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jackson, Juanita Priscilla
(author)
Core Title
Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Degree Conferral Date
2023-05
Publication Date
05/05/2023
Defense Date
04/13/2023
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Black faculty,campus climate,faculty barriers,faculty ethnicity barriers,faculty gender barrier,faculty mentorship,faculty microaggressions,faculty of color,faculty research,faculty sense of belonging,OAI-PMH Harvest,student evaluations of teaching,tenured faculty,tenure-track faculty,UC faculty
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Banuelos, Sheila (
committee chair
), Hinga, Briana (
committee member
), Torres-Retana, Raquel (
committee member
)
Creator Email
juanitaj@usc.edu,JuanitaPJackson@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113099757
Unique identifier
UC113099757
Identifier
etd-JacksonJua-11786.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-JacksonJua-11786
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Jackson, Juanita Priscilla
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20230505-usctheses-batch-1038
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Black faculty
campus climate
faculty barriers
faculty ethnicity barriers
faculty gender barrier
faculty mentorship
faculty microaggressions
faculty of color
faculty research
faculty sense of belonging
student evaluations of teaching
tenured faculty
tenure-track faculty
UC faculty