Overall intro
In mid-January of 2021, the Diversity and Climate Committee reached out to hear about faculty, staff, and student experiences in the Rutgers Psychology Department, and gather impressions of the department related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The invitation to participate in this survey was sent to the email listservs for the department (graduate student, faculty, and staff) as well as the undergraduate advising email listserv. Moreover, instructors of 400 level psychology courses were encouraged to send the survey link to their classes (as they were largely populated by psych majors/minors). Faculty were encouraged to send the survey to undergraduates working in research laboratories. The survey was closed in late February of 2021.
The recruiting efforts led to response rates at or above 65% for all positions aside from undergraduate responses which accounted for under 2% of undergraduate majors and minors. Thus, the data were analyzed from graduate students, staff, and faculty. Next year, we will focus on improving our assessment of undergraduates by working with the vice chair of undergraduate studies.
To consolidate the data analyses, following the example of the Rutgers University Equity Audit, we collapsed strongly agree/agree and strongly disagree/disagree (see page 7 of Rutgers University Equity Audit). In line with the Rutgers University Equity Audit, analyses by race compared Black, Latinx, Native American (hereafter BLNA) and multiracial BLNA groups to the remaining sample respondents. We, of course, recognize that our minority community is much larger than the BLNA group, but the goal of the present analyses and of those in the Rutgers University Audit was to remain sensitive to DEI weaknesses by focusing on statistically underrepresented groups within the Rutgers community. Additionally, maintaining congruence with the university audit facilitates comparisons to findings of the University audit. Open-ended questions in the survey enabled input from everyone, including minority individuals outside the BLNA group. Additionally, we did not report some summary statistics where the cell sizes would have been small enough to make the data identifiable (e.g., we did not include analyses examining cross-tabulated demographics).
The DCC (AY 20-21) consisted of 9 faculty, an advisory board of NTT faculty and graduate students who vetted the survey itself, created/edited the surveys and co-wrote the analysis summarized below.
Diana T. Sanchez (co-chair)
Mark West (co-chair)
David Barker
Benjamin Billingsley (Fall semester)
Rebecca Cipollina
Richard Contrada (Spring semester)
Rachel Cultice
Serena De Stefani
Mona Elsayed
Rob Foels
Guan-en Graham
Mindy Kibbey (Fall semester)
Evan Kleiman
Alex Kusnecov (Fall semester)
Teresa Leyro (Spring semester)
Melanie Maimon
Elif Nur Puraz
Karin Stromwold
Angela Wang (Spring semester)
Robert Woolfolk
Qing Yin (Spring semester)
Department Demographics
Graduate
Notes:
- Difficult to interpret on a program-to-program level given large differences in numbers of applicants.
- BLNA applicants has been between 18-25% for past 10 years
Faculty
Department Stats
- Gender
- 1960 - 2000: 24% female
- Since 2000: 28% female
- BLNA
- 1960 - 2000: 1%
- Since 2000: 21%
NOTE: For the moment we do not have access to historical applicant data to compare the hires vs. the applicant pool for an equity analysis. [Future DCC Goal= track internally]
Staff
BLNA Staff Members
Notes:
- We have increased the representation of BLNA staff from 36% of the staff in 2010 to 45% of the staff in 2020.
- Currently, the BLNA staff is at its second highest % in the last 10 years.
- Recent retirements mean there is an opportunity to maintain diversity in the psychology staff.
Climate Survey
Survey Intro
A few notes on data collection
- Data collection was anonymous and efforts were taken to limit levels of analysis that might cause individual identification.
Basic Survey Demographics
Distribution of sample across several demographic questions
Note: BLNA = Black, Latinx, Native-American BNLA
A. Who experienced bias?
Goal: To identify what (if any) incidents of bias have occurred, and for whom these incidents are likely.
Narrative summary
Overall take aways:
There were 19 (of 92) respondents (20.7%) who reported that they had experienced an incident where they were treated in a discriminatory manner by a psychology department member. An additional 12 (13%) responded that they did not know whether this was the case.
There were 32 (out of 92) respondents (34.8%) who reported that they had witnessed or were told firsthand about an incident where a psychology department member was treated in a discriminatory manner by another psychology department member. An additional 9 (9.8%) responded that they did not know whether this was the case.
With regard to the bases for discrimination experienced by the respondent, the most frequent response was “sex/gender” which was reported by 10 out of the 19 (53%) who reported such an episode. The next most frequent responses were age (6 of 19) (32%), race/ethnicity (5 of 19) (26%), and religion (3 of 19) (16%).
Discrimination Bases goes here (still working on a good way to do this)
Analysis by race
Summary:
- Of 14 BLNA respondents, 3 (21.4%) reported that they were treated in a discriminatory manner by a member of the department, and an additional 2 (14.3%) indicated they were not sure.
- Of 65 Non-BLNA respondents, 9 (13.8%) reported that they were treated in a discriminatory manner by a member of the department, and an additional 8 (12.3%) indicated they were not sure.
- There were 13 respondents who did not indicate their race, of whom 7 (53.8%) reported that they were treated in a discriminatory manner by a member of the department, and an additional 2 (15.4%) indicated they were not sure. *Across race/ethnicity groups, personal discrimination experiences were most often experienced on multiple occasions rather than single occurrences.
Single vs. multiple experiences of discrimination
- Across race/ethnicity groups, personal discrimination experiences were most often experienced on multiple occasions rather than single occurrences.
B. Who seems to be valued?
Goal: To identify whether department members believe that minority groups feel included here, and who might be least likely to indicate minority members are valued (staff, faculty, UG, grad, BLNA, minoritized group members).
Narrative Summary:
- Overall, 76% (n=69) felt minority groups have equal opportunities in the department to excel, regardless of social identities, whereas 24% (n=22) felt they did not.
- However, 39% of those who did not disclose their race, felt they did not have equal opportunities, as did 29% of BLNA respondents
- Overall, 86% (n=78) believed that the contributions of minority group members are taken seriously by the department, whereas 14% (n=13) believed they are not.
- Of those not disclosing their race, 39% (n=5) felt minority groups were not taken seriously and 14% (n=2) of BLNA respondents felt this way, whereas 91% (n=58) believed that minority group members were taken seriously.
- Overall, 83% (n=75) disagreed with the statement that people with minority identities are excluded by other members of the department, 17% (n=15) believed that they were excluded.
- 14% (n=2) of BLNA respondents felt that individuals with minority identities were excluded as did 31% (n=4) of those not disclosing.
- Overall, 85% (n=78) felt that people with minority identities are valued by members of the psychology department, whereas 13% (n=12) felt they were not.
- 14% (n=2) of BLNA respondents felt that people with minority identities were not valued as did 39% (n=5) of those not disclosing their race, whereas only 8% (n=5) of non-BLNA respondents felt this way.
Question: Please indicate which minority group members you perceive as being excluded, de-valued or given less opportunities in the department (choose all that apply):
C. Do you feel valued?
Goal: To identify whether minority group members themselves feel valued here, and who might be least likely to indicate so (staff, faculty, BLNA, etc.).
Overall take aways:
- Overall, 82.6% (n=76/92) of the department feels that they are valued within the department.
- While 100% of BLNA respondents (n=14) felt valued, only 83% of non-BLNA (n=54) and 61.5% of those who did not specify their race (n=8) felt this way.
- When considering rank, 85.7% (n=6) of staff felt valued, along with 73% (n=27) of faculty, and 89.6% (n=43) of graduate students.
Narrative Summary:
- Similarly, 81.5% (n=75/92) of departmental members feel that have the opportunity to excel within the department. Of BLNA respondents, 92% (n=13) felt that they had the opportunity to excel, followed by 86.2% (n=56) of non-BLNA and 46.2% of those who did not specify their race (n=6)
- With regards to rank, 85.7% (n=6) of staff felt that they had equal opportunities to excel, along with 73% (n=27) of faculty and 87.5% (n=42) of graduate students.
- A majority (83.7%; n=77/92) of departmental members indicated that they did not feel excluded by others in the department.
- Of those who felt excluded, 14.3% (n=2) were BLNA, 21.5% (n=14) were non BLNA, and 38.5% (n=5) did not specify their race.
- While no members of staff reported feeling excluded in the department (0%; n=7), 12.5% (n=6) of graduate students and 40.5% (n=15) of faculty reported feeling excluded by other members of the department.
- A total of 80.4% (n=74/92) of department members reported feeling that their contributions are taken seriously.
- The highest proportion of those who did not feel their contributions are taken seriously did not report their race (30.8%, n=4), while 20% (n=13) of non-BLNA and only 7.1% (n=1) of BLNA respondents did not feel that their contributions are valued.
- All members of the staff (100%; n=7) felt their contributions are taken seriously, along with 89.6% (n=43) of the graduate students.
- Only 64.9% of the faculty (n=24) felt their contributions are taken seriously.
D. Overall and Diversity and Inclusion
Goal: To examine whether the department feels we have a fair and inclusive environment, how we are faring with prioritizing diversity, and whether perceptions vary by minority status.
Summary: Fair and Inclusive Environment
Question: Does the Psychology department provide an environment that promotes the free and open expression of ideas, opinions, and beliefs?
- Overall, 65.9% (n=60) of respondents agreed (i.e., Strongly Agree/Agree) that the Psychology department provides an environment that promotes the free and open expression of ideas, opinions, and beliefs
- Splitting by minority status, agreement was higher amongst non-BNLA (78.6%, n=46) and BLNA (71.9%, n=11) respondents and lower (23.1%, n=3) amongst those that did not specify race.
- Overall, 67.0% (n=59) agreed that the department applies procedures consistently across all members.
- Splitting by minority status, agreement was 72.1% amongst respondents identifying as non-BNLA (n=44), 64.3% BLNA (n=9), and 46.2% not specifying race (n=6).
Summary: Prioritization of Diversity and Inclusion
- Respondents were relatively split regarding whether the department could do more to promote diversity and inclusion with 54.05% (n=47) disagreeing (Strongly Disagree/Disagree) and 46.0% (n=40) agreeing.
- Agreement varied by minority status (non-BNLA: 50.8%, n=31; BLNA respondents: 35.7%, n=5; not specifying a race: 33.3%, n=4).
- Overall, 64.9% (n=48) of respondents agreed that the department has done a good job prioritizing diversity and inclusion in Faculty hiring.*
- Greater agreement was observed regarding the department doing a good job prioritizing diversity and inclusion in Staff hiring 84.6%, n=55) and involving undergraduates in research (76.9%, n=50).*
- However, fewer respondents agreed that the department has done a good job of prioritizing diversity and inclusion in Graduate admissions (58.0%, n=40). Indicates no notable minority status differences to report
E. Engagement in Department Results
Goal: To examine whether department members feel engaged, whether engagement varies by minority status, and department member type.
Narrative Summary:
Overall, 76.7%(n=69) of respondents felt that they belong with others in the psych department.
But only 33.3% of those who did not specify their race felt that they belong in the department.
Overall, 83.4%(n=76) felt that they established meaningful connections with peers in the department.
- While 86.2%(n=56) of non-BLNA respondents felt they had meaningful connections, only 78.6%(n=11) of BLNA respondents and 75%(n=9) of those that did disclose their race felt they established meaningful connections.
Question: Have you ever seriously considered leaving the department and to what extent was this departure considered because of diversity, equity, and/or climate issues?
- Overall, 32.6% (n = 30) of the respondents seriously considered leaving the department over the past 5 years
- 70% (n = 21) of those respondents considered leaving because of diversity and climate issues.
- 76.9% of those that did not specify their race considered leaving while only 26.2% of non-BLNA, and 21.4% of BLNA respondents seriously considered leaving.
F. Mentor/Mentee relationships
Goal: To examine whether the quality of mentoring relationships varies by minority status.
G. Diversity & Inclusion Obstacles/Plans
Goal: To examine how much buy-in we have for D&I effort/plans overall, by department member type, and to examine the current level of engagement with D&I. This section also includes brainstorming for new initiatives.
Narrative Summary 92% of respondents endorsed the value of DEI. And although attitudes are in favor, less than half of respondents have participated in formalized programs to address DEI. 67% of respondents were in favor of assessing DEI as covered in the classroom, almost half suggesting the SIRS mechanism. Among respondents who had been here for 5+ years, there was the perception that the climate had improved in the department somewhat over the last five years, perhaps after an earlier era of stasis. This was largely attributed to increases in faculty diversity and decreases in prejudice and bias among the faculty and department leadership.
Open-ended suggestions for how we should make this assessment
| Suggestion | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Student Evaluation SIRS Question | 21 |
| Don’t Like the Idea of Assessment | 5 |
| Add an open-ended question to SIRS | 4 |
| Evaluate Course Material | 1 |
| Only Give Assessment to Problem Faculty | 1 |
| Use the Respect Question on SIRS as Proxy | 1 |
| Ask About Offensive Remarks in Class | 1 |
| Ask Professors to address these issues | 1 |
| Wary about Cross-Area Assessment | 1 |
| responses | Mentions_Percent |
|---|---|
| Department faculty members are more diverse (Gender and Race) | 19.64 |
| New to the Department | 19.64 |
| Past Leadership and Faculty were racist/sexist | 10.71 |
| More Structural Changes are needed | 7.14 |
| Current Chair Problems (e.g., perceived as exclusionary, pushing personal agenda) | 7.14 |
| Better DEI Initiatives Now | 7.14 |
| Little improvement has been made. | 5.36 |
| Personal experiences of unfairness | 5.36 |
| Less tension between the areas | 3.57 |
| Not enough faculty diversity | 3.57 |
| Not all faculty believe in DEI as core mission | 3.57 |
| Departure of Faculty | 3.57 |
| Department has grown/improving | 3.57 |
| Better Communication and Responsibility is Needed | 3.57 |
| Underrepresentation of Female faculty | 1.79 |
| There are more women in leadership positions | 1.79 |
| The Decline of RUCCS | 1.79 |
| Staff Diversity is better | 1.79 |
| Should be more overlap across areas | 1.79 |
| Sexual harassment is milder now | 1.79 |
| SAS limits our improvement | 1.79 |
| Not enough DEI initiatives | 1.79 |
| Need more diversity at grad level | 1.79 |
| More Outreach is Happening to Diversify | 1.79 |
| Mentor issues | 1.79 |
| Little guidance for students | 1.79 |
| Interactions between faculty and staff have not improved | 1.79 |
| Hostile climate for viewpoint diversity | 1.79 |
| Grad student discrimination | 1.79 |
| DEI Awareness has increased | 1.79 |
| Bias Continues against younger women | 1.79 |
Qualitative Data
| Themes | Mentions | example |
|---|---|---|
| Continue/increase efforts to increase faculty diversity/hire senior faculty of color | 16 | Hire more faculty of color, faculty make-up is not really a proportional representation of everyone, but it might never be. That is a problem in the supply chain all the way back to K-12 and SES, etc. |
| Increase efforts and outreach to increase graduate students of color/Develop new strategies to increase diversity in graduate pool | 16 | High School Outreach events related to Psychology Careers/PhDS and Diversity oriented recruitment events |
| More events (social and professional for everyone), more cross area, cross lab contact | 10 | “visit other labs day” with coffee and treats; Create affinity groups |
| Concerns about insensitivity and offensiveness about Department Chair/Leadership should refrain from sending offensive emails and tweets | 8 | |
| Increase speaker diversity/provide more department training/education on DEI | 8 | A colloquium series devoted to inviting junior scholars from UR backgrounds, " Bring in leaders from top institutions that have excellent models for promoting diversity and inclusion to give talks "“Training on offensive language” “Mandatory education on DEI” “Education, training, and regulations on equality issues” |
| Better mentorship and resources for minority graduate students | 7 | Provide more mentorship to women in leaky pipeline fields of psychology/More mentorship for students on how to succeed in academic as a minority member/Celebrate your mentee’s accomplishments/Create informal connections among faculty and graduate students of color |
| Comments on the positivity of the environment | 6 | “In recruiting graduate students, foreign students, and faculty, the department reflexively perceives diversity as an underlying prerogative of any search. And still further, seeks diversity lines. We have not neglected this goal in the years I have been here.” |
| Integrate DEI into the structure of the Department | 6 | Put DCC Chair on EC/Include DEI more prominently in the evaluations (merit and promotions)/DEI integrated into hiring practices |
| Comments/criticism on survey itself | 6 | wise to omit a “neutral” option, but a “somewhat” option would have been more accurate / ambiguity of questions, such as feeling valued by “members” of the department- by how many? Valued how? as people? psychologists? teachers? researchers? / triangulation can be used to identify/hope that the survey will make a difference |
| Fix severe climate issues and toxicity of specific areas/programs | 6 | |
| Encourage open civil conversations (allowing differences in opinion) | 5 | |
| Conduct more/regular department level assessments | 5 | Conduct exit interviews (regardless of whether leaved early or graduated)/evaluating grading criteria to ensure it does not differently affect some students/Provide an anonymous place to give DEI related feedback |
| Create a department that is tolerant of viewpoint diversity/reduce bias against conservatives | 4 | |
| Diversify faculty leadership (chair, vice chairs, area coordinators) | 4 | |
| Provide more undergraduate opportunities for first generation, transfer students, minorities to become part of the graduate pipeline | 4 | Create a UG GRE prep course; Create a job board for RA openings for Ugs; More paid internships for minority Ugs, “Department needs a more holistic approach toward increasing diversity in labs (including staff, undergrads and grad students) and faculty.”: |
| Develop comprehensive plan for monitoring/measuring hiring, recruitment, and retainment at all levels | 4 | "Accountability to labs on reporting diversity of participants, lab members, etc |
| Treat each individual with respect | 3 | Be patient and listen, be compassionate and don’t do anything that you wouldn’t want to experience. hold faculty accountable for language that belittles minority students |
| Addressing the needs of those with disabilities | 3 | The elevators are not very easily accessible, so people who can’t go upstairs often have really long walks in order to change floors ’ “training on making lectures and talks more accessible (offer funds for paid close captioning on video lectures to ensure accuracy)” |
| Value and commit resources to DEI-oriented research | 3 | Hire Faculty who address cultural and racial factors/Diversify approaches to science/research |
| Bias training (e.g., cutting off female speakers > than men, offensive language denying sexual prejudice, religious bias) | 3 | |
| Department needs to define DEI goals | 3 | no departmental consensus on what our DEI goals ought to be / Strong leadership in the DEI space is needed to sell the department on DEI goals, and develop the social trust needed for people to support DEI efforts. / Department needs to think through what types of diversity it is seeking, then needs to address, "Who is being targeted for inclusion? |
| More outreach to improve the pool graduate pool of applicants | 2 | |
| Reduce the prejudice and bias in the Department Leadership | 2 | |
| More course on diversity topics | 2 | Diversify materials being taught in courses/ Offer courses like cross-cultural psychology |
| More active DCC/Better communication from DCC | 2 | |
| Recognize our areas of that need improvement (e.g., lack of diversity in the classroom) | 2 | |
| Increase staff diversity (including lab staff) | 2 | |
| Open communication in the department | 2 | Better communication between students and faculty |
| Areas differ in their commitment to DEI | 2 | |
| Lack of action (less talk, more action) | 1 | |
| More career workshops | 1 | maybe hold a career workshop, online or in person when we are able to do so, with a variety of persons who hold advanced degrees in different areas of psych, to showcase a bunch of people who have psych degrees with different career paths, and they wouldn’t be all WASP-y types, something like that (Done) |
| Faculty collective make donations to civil rights movement | 1 | |
| Intentional messaging addressing systemic racism and other prejudices. | 1 | |
| Create opportunities for ALL students, not just the ones you know well | 1 | |
| Reduce prejudice in the climate | 1 | |
| Increase participation of affliate members | 1 | |
| Need a more consistent format for providing regular and timely feedback (and mentoring) to junior faculty | 1 | |
| More events that celebrate minority students, staff, and faculty | 1 | |
| Improve interactions patterns between individuals such superiors and subordinates | 1 | |
| Recognize and fix gender imbalance of service | 1 | |
| Encourage and allow time for psych members to actively participate in both local and national organizations dedicated to minority representation | 1 | |
| Fix the playroom at RUCCS | 1 | |
| Be open about the history of representation in the department | 1 | |
| Improve stipend for graduate students; the income gap between students and faculty is severe | 1 | |
| More program-wide instruction on how to do research that looks at (or at least adequately includes) these groups’ experiences. | 1 |