The IDEA Committee is comprised of USFA members from the four designated groups: racialized minority individuals, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, and women and gender equity-seeking groups.

In its report to the USFA Fall General Meeting, the IDEA Committee reported it organized a survey about IDEA issues such as the treatment of members in tenure, promotion and salary review processes. The data collected in the survey, summarized below, will be used to understand the present work climate on campus and inform future decisions and supportive advocacy for faculty members. The survey results will also be used to help fulfill the committee’s purposes which include:

• identifying issues of concern for USask faculty regarding IDEA and working to address them through information, education and leadership
• educating and communicating with USFA members about IDEA issues on campus and IDEA experiences in academia
• identifying IDEA issues for bargaining
• promoting IDEA on campus.

Approximately 150 responses were received, which provided rich quantitative and qualitative data to help the IDEA Committee better understand faculty members’ experiences and perspectives related to their work at the University of Saskatchewan. Respondents came from a range of demographics. The majority identified as women, approximately one-third identified as a visible minority and just under 16% identified as someone living with a disability. Only 3 respondents identified as Indigenous. Just over one-half of the respondents were tenured and almost 40% indicated their rank as either Professor or Librarian. While 48.5% of the respondents indicated they are treated fairly at work, a majority agreeing their opinions matter to colleagues and 70.7% rejecting the notion that their peers discriminate against them through comments on teaching evaluations, only 21.6% said they feel valued for their differences and half told us they are not given equal opportunities for career development. Nearly half of respondents do not feel comfortable advocating for themselves at work and 59% indicated they have had a mentor or champion at some point in their career. Notably, 39.8% feel they must downplay their identity at work, 40.6% have experienced discriminatory comments in student evaluations, and 35.8% feel they have been discriminated against during salary review. Considering two-thirds of respondents are racialized as White, further research is required to understand and respond to systemic discrimination according to specific demographics. Future surveys can also include Indigenous and multi-racial identity categories as not all Indigenous people and multiracial people are visible minorities yet experience racism in distinct ways.

Approximately 150 responses were received, which provided rich quantitative and qualitative data to help the IDEA Committee better understand faculty members’ experiences and perspectives related to their work at the University of Saskatchewan. Respondents came from a range of demographics. The majority identified as women, approximately one-third identified as a visible minority and just under 16% identified as someone living with a disability. Only 3 respondents identified as Indigenous. Just over one-half of the respondents were tenured and almost 40% indicated their rank as either Professor or Librarian. While 48.5% of the respondents indicated they are treated fairly at work, a majority agreeing their opinions matter to colleagues and 70.7% rejecting the notion that their peers discriminate against them through comments on teaching evaluations, only 21.6% said they feel valued for their differences and half told us they are not given equal opportunities for career development. Nearly half of respondents do not feel comfortable advocating for themselves at work and 59% indicated they have had a mentor or champion at some point in their career. Notably, 39.8% feel they must downplay their identity at work, 40.6% have experienced discriminatory comments in student evaluations, and 35.8% feel they have been discriminated against during salary review. Considering two-thirds of respondents are racialized as White, further research is required to understand and respond to systemic discrimination according to specific demographics. Future surveys can also include Indigenous and multi-racial identity categories as not all Indigenous people and multiracial people are visible minorities yet experience racism in distinct ways.

Respondents were asked to identify areas of focus for the IDEA Committee as well as preferred modes of engagement. Majorities agreed that all areas of focus offered were worthy, the most popular options were career development (84% agreement), tenure and promotion (82% agreement), salary review (81% agreement), and valuing differences (81% agreement). In addition, issues of discriminatory hiring practices, challenges faced by those whose first language is not English, concerns about salaries and salary inequity, and support for parents were all raised by multiple respondents. The most popular mode of engagement was Lunch and Learns with several respondents highlighting that busy schedules make engagement difficult and suggesting online forms of engagement, such as email, a blog, newsletters, webinars, or Zoom presentations.

The survey also included questions related to the newly initiated anti-racism and unconscious bias training sessions presented by the Employer. Most respondents found the training sessions neither effective nor ineffective. Higher proportions of those who found the training ineffective were observed among those living with disabilities, those identifying with other genders, and those without tenure, and women, visible minorities, and those with tenure had higher proportions who found the training effective. Positive comments about the training included suggestions that the sessions should be only a first step with more training to follow while negative comments included the training being either ineffective or of poor quality, it focused on some IDEA groups while ignoring others, and it was too American. However, it is important to note that a clear majority of respondents indicated they had not yet taken the training with several suggesting that this was due to the limited capacity of these training sessions and the difficulty in registering for one that fits their schedule.

When it comes to tenure and promotion processes and whether respondents could see themselves going through these processes smoothly, IDEA group respondents (80), relayed divided experiences or anticipated experiences. Thirty-seven indicated they either had or anticipated they would move through tenure and promotion smoothly, while 35 experienced or anticipated it would not be smooth. An additional nine respondents were unsure. For non-IDEA respondents, there was a bit more confidence, with seven out of the 12 anticipating or experiencing a smooth experience, four suggesting a difficult experience, and one being unsure.

Some respondents (33) shared reasons for their response. For non-IDEA group members, concerns leading to a difficult process were varied. One expressed frustration about not being valued for their teaching abilities, another was concerned about their lack of ability, and another stated it was an issue of their religious requirements not being taken seriously. Similarly, respondents from the IDEA group provided mixed reasons. About half shared concerns not explicitly grounded in IDEA principles such as small budgets, poor administration, unreasonable requirements, or the lack of career path for lecturers. These concerns, however, as research has demonstrated, are outcomes of systemic discrimination in terms of how funding is allocated, how administration favors certain faculty, how requirements are communicated, and who is prioritized for career advancement. For instance, the other half of respondents stated overt discrimination or bias, either conscious or unconscious, as the root of their concern. Some of these respondents expressed mild concern that IDEA factors may make tenure and promotion more difficult, while others shared more pronounced experiences of discrimination. Several respondents with disabilities expressed the difficulty they had, with there being little to no accommodation or even recognition for their disability.

In addition, women responded that more was expected of them without proper recognition of that work, making advancement more difficult. This frustration was also expressed by those unsure about whether tenure and promotion processes would be smooth with concerns such as being a woman put them on a more difficult path, from inbuilt discrimination, to support for mothers being insufficient, through facing potentially sexist teaching evaluations.

The survey also asked about taking on leadership roles and whether respondents could see themselves taking on administrative or research leadership roles. Responses were generally divided. However, more non-IDEA group members indicated they either already were taking on leadership roles, or that they thought they would in the future. Very few suggested they would not or were uncertain. While many of the IDEA group members expressed that they either anticipated taking up leadership roles or had already done so, most respondents were more pessimistic about taking on such roles. The most common reason IDEA members suggested for not taking on such roles was simply because they did not want to; these roles add too heavy a burden and there seems to be minimal benefit to taking on this burden. The IDEA Committee, however, must ask why IDEA members do not want to take on leadership roles, and why such roles would add too heavy of a burden. Research suggests such feelings are direct outcomes of racialization processes. For example, concerns were shared by the minority of respondents who suggested their status as IDEA members impaired their ability to take on these roles. A few of the respondents believed that being a visible minority or having a language barrier would limit their opportunities. One respondent believes discrimination toward her ethnicity and gender as a woman would make taking on leadership roles fruitless, suggesting a need for an intersectional analysis of IDEA members’ experiences. Two respondents shared there are too many barriers for people with disabilities and neurodivergence to successfully take on leadership roles. Respondents were also asked what their units could do to better support them. Despite wide-ranging and varied responses, some of the findings illuminate the distinct ways in which IDEA group members are lacking support.

• Reduce workload: One of the most frequent suggestions from both IDEA and non-IDEA respondents. More support for administrative work, or assigning less is needed, and two respondents suggested the administrative burden is felt more acutely by IDEA members.
• Address the issue of discrimination at the university: Among IDEA group members, calls for addressing discrimination crossed the spectrum. Responses revealed problems with the treatment of women, visible minorities, those with disabilities, those from the LGBTQ2S+ community, and Indigenous faculty, with mentions of this discrimination coming from students, colleagues, and the administration.
• Increase funding, mentorship opportunities and improve training: Members of all groups suggested these as ways to better support IDEA group members.
• More accommodation and/or better health services: This is a glaring suggestion that came from half the respondents with a disability.
• Better support and understanding for parents: An issue raised nearly exclusively by women or non-binary respondents. The non-IDEA group did not mention this.

Other responses mentioned by only the IDEA group included the need for better leadership, either at the department level or from senior administration, as well as a desire to see diversity better integrated at the University of Saskatchewan, better teaching supports, improvements to the tenure process, recognition of non-typical types of work, and fostering connections between faculty.

The IDEA Committee thanks everyone who participated in this survey and looks forward to using the information gathered by it to inform future decisions, support advocacy for faculty members, and to help fulfill the IDEA Committee’s purposes.