The methods used to analyze the status of women academics at Queen's University, Ontario, Canada, are described. An initial study examined several individual variables believed to affect salary and compared the findings for men and women faculty and utilized a multiple regression analysis to integrate most of those variables into one model. A second study of the same faculty used a simple statistical review similar to that used in the initial study and an adaptation of a peer pairing approach. This study focused on those faculties and discipline groups where most women held positions. Patterns of appointment and promotion, as well as salary review over a 10-year period, are discussed. Both the dean and the individual woman faculty member were asked to name a peer, since the choice of peer reflects a judgment about where an individual is or ought to be. The peers and the women were asked to complete detailed questionnaires on qualifications, experience, and current activities. Comparative salary levels and salary histories were also obtained on the peer pairs. The limitations of quantitative methods and of the peer pairing method are discussed. Integration of traditional review procedures with techniques of statistical analysis and peer pairing allows greater equity at both the group and individual level than any of these methods separately. (SC)