|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
PREPUBLICATION COPY
SUMMARY
The 1999 report, A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT,
created a new level of awareness of the special challenges faced by women faculty in the
sciences. Although not the first examination of the treatment of female faculty, this report
marked an important historical moment, igniting interest in difficulties experienced by
many women, particularly those at the higher levels of academia. Since the release of the
MIT report, many other institutions have studied equity issues regarding their faculty, and
several have publicly pledged to use their resources to correct identified disparities.
Although academic departments, institutions, professional societies, and others have paid
more attention to the topic in the last ten years, some experts are concerned that remedial
actions have approached a plateau.
Unquestionably, women’s participation in academic science and engineering
(S&E) has increased over the past few decades. In the ten years prior to the start of this
study, the number of women receiving Ph.D.s in science and engineering increased from
31.7 percent (in 1996) to 37.7 percent (in 2005). The proportion of women among
doctoral scientists and engineers employed full-time, while still small, rose from 17
percent in 1995 to 22 percent in 2003. However, women continued to be
underrepresented among academic faculty relative to the number receiving S&E degrees.
In 2003, women comprised between 18 and 45 percent of assistant professors in S&E and
between 6 and 29 percent of associate and full professors.
In 2002, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) of the Subcommittee on Science,
Technology and Space of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, convened three hearings on the subject of women studying and working
in science, mathematics, and engineering. Soon after, Congress directed the National
Science Foundation (NSF) to contract with the National Academies for a study assessing
gender differences in the careers of science and engineering faculty, based on both
existing and new data. The study committee was given the following charge:
Assess gender differences in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics
(SEM) faculty, focusing on four-year institutions of higher education that award
bachelor’s and graduate degrees. The study will build on the Academy’s previous
work and examine issues such as faculty hiring, promotion, tenure, and allocation
of institutional resources including (but not limited to) laboratory space.
The committee interpreted its charge to imply three tasks: update earlier analyses,
identify and assess current gender differences, and recommend methods for expanding
knowledge about gender in academic careers in science and engineering. It developed a
series of guiding research questions in three key areas to organize its investigation: (1)
academic hiring, (2) institutional resources and climate, and (3) tenure and promotion.
1
OCR for page 2
2 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
The committee also limited its exploration of science and engineering to the natural
sciences and engineering, defined here as the physical sciences (including astronomy,
chemistry, and physics); earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; mathematics and
computer science; biological and agricultural sciences; and engineering (in all its forms).
Faculty and Departmental Surveys
Recognizing at the outset the need for new data, the committee conducted two
national surveys in 2004 and 2005 of faculty and academic departments in six science
and engineering disciplines: biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering,
mathematics, and physics. The first survey of almost 500 departments focused on hiring,
tenure, and promotion processes, while the second survey gathered career-related
information from over 1,800 faculty. Together the surveys addressed departmental
characteristics, hiring, tenure, promotion, faculty demographics, employment
experiences, and types of institutional support received. In addition to results from the
surveys, the committee heard expert testimony, examined data from NSF, the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and professional societies, and reviewed the
results of individual university studies and research publications.
As it would be impossible to survey all “science, engineering, and mathematics
(SEM) faculty at four-year institutions of higher education,” the committee limited the
scope of the surveys in four important ways. These limitations must be kept in mind in
the interpretation of the survey results:
1. The data present a snapshot in time (2004 and 2005), not a longitudinal view.
2. Six disciplines are examined: biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical
engineering, mathematics, and physics;
3. Institutions are limited to major research universities, referred to as Research I
(RI) institutions; and
4. Only full-time, regularly appointed professorial faculty who are either tenure
eligible or tenured are included.
In other words, except in its review of historical data and existing research, the report
does not examine gender differences outside of the six disciplines covered in the surveys
nor at institutions other than R1 universities. It also does not examine the careers of
instructors, lecturers, post-docs, adjunct faculty, clinical faculty, or research faculty, who
may experience very different career paths.
Many of the “whys” of the findings included here are buried in factors the
committee was unable to explore. We do not know, for example, what happens to the
significant percentage of female Ph.D.s in science and engineering who do not apply for
regular, faculty positions at Research I institutions, or what happens to women faculty
members who are hired and subsequently leave the university. And we know little about
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 3
SUMMARY 3
female full professors and what gender differences might exist at this stage of their
careers.
We do know that there are many factors unexplored here that play a significant
role in women’s academic careers, including the constraints of dual careers; access to
quality child care; individuals’ perceptions regarding professional recognition and career
satisfaction; and other quality-of-life issues. In particular, the report does not explore the
impact of children and family obligations (including elder care) on women’s willingness
to pursue faculty positions in R1 institutions or the duration of postdoctoral positions.
Comparisons to Other National Academies’ Reports
This report does not exist in isolation. The committee has benefited greatly from
three other National Academies’ reports on women in academic science and engineering.
In 2001 the Committee on Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE) published From
Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and
Engineers,” a statistical analysis of the career progression of matched cohorts of men and
women Ph.D.s from 1973 to 1995. The 2005 CWSE report, To Recruit and Advance:
Women Students and Faculty in U.S. Science and Engineering, identifies the strategies
that higher education institutions have employed to achieve gender inclusiveness, based
on case studies of four successful universities.
A third report, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in
Academic Science and Engineering, was released in 2006 under the aegis of the
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). The study
committee was charged to “review and assess the research on sex and gender issues in
science and engineering, including innate differences in cognition, implicit bias, and
faculty diversity” and “provide recommendations . . . on the best ways to maximize the
potential of women science and engineering researchers.” The committee considered all
fields of science and engineering (including the social sciences) in a broad range of
academic institutions, relying primarily on existing data and the experience and expertise
of committee members. Its report provides broad policy recommendations for changes at
higher education institutions.
In contrast, the current report examines new information on the career patterns of
men and women faculty at R1 institutions—with particular focus on key transition points
that are under the control of the institutions. The findings and recommendations here are
based primarily on the data from our two surveys, which were not available to the
COSEPUP committee.
Like the COSEPUP committee, this committee found evidence of the overall loss
of women’s participation in academia. That loss is most apparent in the smaller fraction
of women who apply for faculty positions and in the attrition of women assistant
professors before tenure consideration. Unfortunately, our surveys do not shed light on
why women fail to apply for faculty positions or why or if they leave academia between
these critical transition points--underscoring the fact that our work is not done.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 4
4 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
Our survey findings do indicate that, at many critical transition points in their
academic careers (e.g., hiring for tenure-track and tenure positions and promotions),
women appear to have fared as well as or better than men in the disciplines and type of
institutions (R1) studied, and that they have had comparable access to many types of
institutional resources (e.g., start-up packages, lab space, and research assistants). These
findings are in contrast to the COSEPUP committee’s general conclusions that “women
who are interested in science and engineering careers are lost at every educational
transition” and that “evaluation criteria contain arbitrary and subjective components that
disadvantage women.”
After providing a brief overview of the Status of Women in Academic Science
and Engineering in 2004 and 2005 in Chapter 2, the report presents the results of the
survey findings in the three areas: Academic Hiring (Chapter 3), Climate, Institutional
Resources, Professional Activities, and Outcomes (Chapter 4), and (Tenure and
Promotion (Chapter 5). Chapter 6 provides an overall summary of key findings and
recommendations, including questions for future research.
Key Findings
The surveys of academic departments and faculty have yielded interesting and
sometimes surprising findings. For the most part, men and women faculty in science,
engineering, and mathematics have enjoyed comparable opportunities within the
university, and gender does not appear to have been a factor in a number of
important career transitions and outcomes. The findings below provide key insights
on gender differences in Academic Hiring (Chapter 3), Climate, Institutional Resources,
Professional Activities, and Outcomes (Chapter 4), and (Tenure and Promotion (Chapter
5). Complete findings in each of these areas can be found at the end of the relevant
chapter and are summarized in Chapter 6.
As a foundation for understanding the survey findings, it is important to
remember that although women represent an increasing share of science,
mathematics, and engineering faculty, they continue to be underrepresented in
many of those disciplines. While the percent of women among faculty in scientific and
engineering overall increased significantly from 1995 through 2003, the degree of
representation varied substantially by discipline, and there remained disciplines where the
proportion of women was significantly lower than the proportion of men. Table S-1
shows the percent of women faculty in selected scientific and engineering disciplines
during this time period at the assistant, associate, and full professor levels.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 5
SUMMARY 5
TABLE S-1 Representation of Women in Faculty Positions at Research I Institutions by
Rank and Field (%) 1995–2003.
Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Agriculture 17.8 18.6 19.6 18.1 27.2 12.7 12.5 10.7 17.6 13.9 4.9 5.2 6.1 6.6 8.0
Biology 35.6 38.2 36.0 37.0 38.8 26.0 24.3 26.3 30.2 31.2 14.0 14.7 15.8 18.0 20.8
Engineering 14.2 12.7 12.8 14.8 16.6 4.8 6.4 9.6 9.3 11.7 1.8 1.4 2.3 2.7 3.8
Health
Sciences 69.1 66.9 64 64.7 66.5 65.6 65.1 64.9 64.5 59.1 35.1 38.9 45.3 48.0 59.0
Mathematics 18.7 22.0 26.5 25.2 26.6 10.4 14.4 14.9 15.8 16.3 7.6 5.9 9.9 10.0 9.7
Physics 25.1 25.6 24.6 25.4 24.1 9.5 13.4 14.8 16.7 19.5 4.3 4.6 5.9 6.8 7.6
SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Survey of Doctoral Recipients, 1995-2003.
Tabulated by NRC.
In 2003, women comprised 20 percent of the full-time employed S&E workforce
and had slowly gained ground compared to men in the full-time academic workforce; by
2003, they represented about 25 percent of academics. Women’s representation in the
academic workforce, of course, varied by discipline: in the health sciences, women were
the majority of full-time, employed doctorates, while in engineering they were less than
10 percent. The greatest concentration of women among full-time academics was at
medical schools; the lowest was at Research II institutions.
Academic Hiring (Chapter 3)
The findings on academic hiring suggest that many women fared well in the
hiring process at Research I institutions, which contradicts some commonly held
perceptions of research intensive universities. If women applied for positions at RI
institutions, they had a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than male
job candidates had. Many departments at Research I institutions, both public and private,
have made an effort to increase the numbers and proportions of female faculty in the
sciences, engineering and mathematics. Having women play a visible role in the hiring
process, for example, has clearly made a difference. Unfortunately, women continue to be
underrepresented in the applicant pool, relative to their representation among the pool of
recent Ph.D.s. Institutions may not have effective recruitment plans, as departmental
efforts targeted at women were not strong predictors in these surveys of an increased
proportion of women applicants.
1. Women account for about 17 percent of applications for both tenure-track
and tenured positions in the departments surveyed. In each of the six
disciplines, the proportion of applications from women for tenure-track
positions was lower than the percentage of PhDs awarded to women.
(Findings 3-1 and 3-3)
Table S-2 shows the percentage of women in the pool at each of several key transition
points in academic careers: award of PhD, application for position, interview, and job
offer. Although there was wide variation by field and department in the number and
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 6
6 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
proportion of female applicants for faculty positions, the proportion of applications from
women in each discipline was lower than the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to
women. This was particularly the case in chemistry and biology, the two disciplines in
the study with the highest proportion of female PhDs. The mean proportion of female
applicants for tenure-track positions in chemistry was 18%, but women earned 32% of
the PhDs in chemistry from Research I institutions from 1999-2003. Biology (24% in the
tenure-track pool and 45% in the doctoral pool) also showed a significant difference.
The fields with lower percentages of women in the Ph.D. pool had a higher propensity for
those women to apply. Electrical engineering (10% in the tenure-track pool and 12% in
the doctoral pool), mathematics, and physics, for example, had modest decreases in the
applicant pool.
The proportion of applicant pools that included at least one woman was
substantially higher than would be expected by chance. However, there were no female
applicants (only men applied) for 32 (6 percent) of the available tenure-track positions
and 16 (16.5 percent) of the tenured positions.
TABLE S-2 Transitions from Ph.D. to tenure-track positions by field at the Research I
Institutions Surveyed (%)
Doctoral Pool Pools for Tenure-Track Positions
Mean % of applicants
% women Ph.D.s Mean % of applicants Mean % of offers that go
invited to interview who
(1999-2003) who are women to women
are women
45 26 28 34
Biology
32 18 25 29
Chemistry
18 16 30 32
Civil Engineering
Electrical 12 11 19 32
Engineering
25 20 28 32
Mathematics
14 12 19 20
Physics
SOURCE: Survey of departments; Ph.D. data is from NSF, WebCASPAR.
2. The proportion of women who were interviewed for tenure-track or tenured
positions was higher than the percentage of women who apply. (Finding 3-10)
For each of the six disciplines in this study the mean percentage of females
interviewed for tenure-track and tenured positions exceeded the mean percentage of
female applicants. For example, the female applicant pool for tenure-track positions in
electrical engineering was 11 percent, and the corresponding interview pool was 19
percent.
3. The proportion of women who received the first job offer was higher than
the percentage who were invited to interview. (Finding 3-13)
Tenure-track women in all of these disciplines received a greater proportion of
first offers than their proportion in the interview pool. For example, women were 21
percent of the interview pool for tenure-track electrical engineering positions and
received 32 percent of the first offers. This finding is also true for tenured positions with
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 7
SUMMARY 7
the notable exception of biology, where the interview pool was 33 percent female and
women received 22 percent of the first offers.
4. Most institutional and departmental strategies proposed for increasing the
proportion of women in the applicant pool were not strong predictors of the
percentage of women applying. The proportion of females on the search
committee and having a woman chair the search committee, however, did
have a significant effect on recruiting women. (Findings 3-7 and 3-8)
Departments have not generally been aggressive in using special strategies to
increase the gender diversity of the applicant pool. Most of the policy steps proposed for
increasing the proportion of women in the applicant pool (such as targeted advertising,
recruiting at conferences, and contacting colleagues at other institutions) were done in
isolation, with almost two-thirds of the departments in our sample reporting they took
either no steps or one step designed to increase the gender diversity of the applicant pool.
It does appear that women were more likely to apply for a position if a woman
was chairing the search committee. The proportion of females on the search committee
and whether a woman chaired the committee were both significantly and positively
associated with the proportion of women in the applicant pool.
Professional Activities, Climate, Institutional Resources, and Outcomes (Chapter 4)
The survey findings with regard to climate and resources demonstrate two critical
points. First, discipline matters, as indicated by the difference in the amount of grant
funding held by men and women faculty in biology, but not in other disciplines. Second,
institutions have been doing well in addressing most of the aspects of climate that they
can control, such as start up packages and reduced teaching loads. Where the challenge
may remain is in the climate at the departmental level. Interaction and collegial
engagement with one’s colleagues is an important part of scientific discovery and
collaboration, and here women faculty were not as connected.
5. Male and female faculty appeared to have similar access to many kinds of
institutional resources, although there were some resources for which male
faculty seemed to have an advantage. (Findings 4-1 through 4-5)
Survey data revealed a great deal of similarity between the professional lives of
male and female faculty. In general, men and women spent similar proportions of their
time on teaching, research, and service; male faculty spent 41.4 percent of their time on
teaching, while female faculty spent 42.6 percent. Male and female faculty members
reported comparable access to most institutional resources, including start-up packages,
initial reduced teaching loads, travel funds, summer salary, and supervision of similar
numbers of research assistants and postdocs.
Men appeared to have had greater access to equipment needed for research and to
clerical support. At first glance, men seemed to have more lab space than women, but this
difference disappeared once other factors such as discipline and faculty rank were
accounted for.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 8
8 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
6. Female faculty reported that they were less likely to engage in conversation
with their colleagues on a wide range of professional topics. (Findings 4-6, 4-
7 and 4-8)
There were no differences between male and female faculty on two of our
measures of inclusion: chairing committees (39 percent for men and 34 percent for
women) and being part of a research team (62 percent for men and 65 percent for
women). And although women reported that they were more likely to have mentors than
men (57 percent for tenure-track women faculty compared to 49 percent for men), they
were less likely to engage in conversation with their colleagues on a wide range of
professional topics, including research, salary, and benefits (and, to some extent,
interaction with other faculty members and departmental climate). This distance may
prevent women from accessing important information and may make them feel less
included and more marginalized in their professional lives. Men and women faculty
surveyed did not differ in their reports of discussions with colleagues on teaching,
funding, interaction with administration, and personal life.
7. There is little evidence across the six disciplines that men and women have
exhibited different outcomes on most key measures (including publications,
grant funding, nominations for international and national honors and
awards, salary, and offers of positions in other institutions). The exception is
publications, where men had published more than women in five of the six
disciplines. On all measures, there were significant differences among
disciplines. (Findings 4-9 through 4-14)
Overall, male faculty had published marginally more refereed articles and papers in the
last three years than female faculty, except in electrical engineering, where the reverse
was true. Men had published significantly more papers than women in chemistry (men:
15.8; women: 9.4) and mathematics (men: 12.4; women: 10.4). In electrical engineering,
women had published marginally more papers than men (7.5 for women compared with
5.8 for men). The differences in number of publications between men and women were
not significant in biology, civil engineering, and physics.
There were no significant gender differences in the probability that male or
female faculty would have grant funding, i.e., be a principal investigator or co-principal
investigator on a grant proposal. Male faculty had significantly more research funding
than female faculty in biology; in the other disciplines, the differences were not
significant.
Female assistant professors who had a mentor had a higher probability of
receiving grants than those who did not have a mentor. In chemistry female assistant
professors with mentors had a 95 percent probability of having grant funding versus 77
percent for those women without mentors. Over all six fields surveyed female assistant
professors with no mentors had a 68 percent probability of having grant funding versus
93 percent of women with mentors. This contrasts with the pattern for male assistant
professors; those with no mentor had an 86 percent probability of having grant funding
versus 83 percent for those with mentors.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 9
SUMMARY 9
Overall male and female faculty were equally likely to be nominated for
international and national honors and awards, although the results varied significantly by
discipline. Gender was a significant determinant of salary among full professors; male
full professors made, on the average, about 8 percent more than females, once we
controlled for discipline. At the associate and assistant professor ranks, the differences in
salaries of men and women faculty disappeared.
Tenure and Promotion (Chapter 5)
The findings related to tenure and promotion indicate the importance of
addressing the retention of women faculty in the early stages of their academy careers;
not as many were considered for tenure as would be expected, based on the number of
women assistant professors. Retention was particularly problematic given the increased
duration of time in rank for all faculty. Both male and female faculty utilized stopping
the tenure clock policies--spending a longer time in the uncertainty of securing tenure--
but women used these policies more. Women faculty who did come up for tenure were as
successful or more successful than men, so one of the most important challenges may be
increasing the pool of women faculty who make it to that point.
8. In every field, women were underrepresented among candidates for tenure
relative to the number of women assistant professors. Most strikingly,
women were most likely to be underrepresented in the fields in which they
accounted for the largest share of the faculty – biology and chemistry.
(Finding 5-1)
In biology and chemistry, the differences were statistically significant. In
biology, 27 percent of the faculty considered for tenure were female, while women
represented 36 percent of the assistant professor pool. In chemistry those numbers were
15 percent and 22 percent respectively. This difference may suggest that women assistant
professors were more likely to leave before being considered for tenure than men were.
It might also reflect increased hiring of women assistant professors in recent years
(compared with hiring 6 to 8 years ago).
9. Women were more likely than men to receive tenure when they came up for
tenure review. (Findings 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4)
In each of the six fields examined in this survey, women were tenured at the same
or a higher rate than men (an overall average of 92 percent for women and 87 percent for
men). It appears that women were more likely to be promoted when there was a smaller
proportion of females among the tenure-track faculty. Discipline, stop-the-clock policies,
and departmental size were not associated with the probability of a positive tenure
decision for either male or female faculty members who were considered for tenure.
Both male and female assistant professors were significantly more likely to receive tenure
at public institutions (92 percent) than private institutions (85 percent).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 10
10 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
10. No significant gender disparity existed at the stage of promotion to full
professor. (Findings 5-6 and 5-7)
For the six disciplines surveyed, 90 percent of the men and 88 percent of the women
proposed for full professor were promoted—a difference that was not statistically
significant, after accounting for other potentially important factors such as disciplinary
differences, departmental size, and use of stopping-the-clock policies. Women were
proposed for promotion to full professor at approximately the same rates as they were
represented among associate professors.
11. Women spent significantly longer time in rank as assistant professors than
men did. (Findings 5-8 and 5-9)
Although time in rank as an assistant professor has increased over time for both men and
women, women showed significantly longer durations than men. It is difficult to
determine whether these apparent differences might be explained, at least in part, by
individual and departmental characteristics such as length of post-doctoral experience and
stopping-the-clock for family leave. Both male and female faculty spent longer in
assistant professor ranks at institutions of higher prestige.
12. Male and female faculty who stopped the tenure clock spent significantly
longer as assistant professors than those who did not (an average of 74
months versus 57 months). They had a lower chance of promotion to
associate professor (about 80 percent) at any time (given that they had not
been promoted until then) than those who did not stop the clock. Everything
else being equal, however, stopping-the-clock did not affect the probability of
promotion and tenure; it just delayed it by about a year and a half. It is
unclear how that delay affected women faculty, who were more likely than men to
avail themselves of this policy. (Finding 5-10)
Although the effect of stopping-the-clock on the probability of promotion and
tenure is similar for both men and women faculty, 19.7 percent of women assistant
professors in the survey sample availed themselves of this policy compared to 7.4
percent of male assistant professors. At the associate professor level, 10.2 percent of
female faculty versus 6.4 percent of male faculty stopped the tenure clock.
Recommendations
The survey data suggest that positive changes have happened and continue to
occur. At the same time, the data should not be mistakenly interpreted as indicating that
men and women faculty in math, science, and engineering have reached full equality and
representation, and we caution against premature complacency. Much work remains to be
done to accomplish full representation of men and women in academic departments.
Many of the survey findings point out specific areas in which research institutions
and professional societies can enhance the likelihood that more women will apply to
faculty positions and persist in academia up to and beyond tenure and promotion.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 11
SUMMARY 11
Changes in the faculty recruitment and search process, enhancement of mentoring
programs, broader dissemination of tenure and stop-the-clock policies, and investigation
of the subtle effects of climate on career decisions can all help. Increased data collection,
of course, is also necessary. Specific recommendations for institutions and professional
societies are delineated in Chapter 6.
Questions for Future Research
This study raises many unanswered questions about the status of women in
academia. As noted at the onset of this report, the surveys did not capture the experiences
of PhDs who never apply for academic positions, nor of women faculty who have left at
various points in their academic careers. We also recognize that there are important,
nonacademic issues affecting men and women differentially that impact career choices at
critical junctures. Fuller examination of these issues (for example, topics relating to
family, children, home life, care of elderly parents) will shed greater light on career
choices by women and men and should yield suggestions on the types of support needed
to encourage retention of women in academic careers. Below are suggestions for future
research:
A Deeper Understanding of Career Paths
1. Using longitudinal data, what are the academic career paths of women in different
science and engineering disciplines from receipt of their Ph.D. to retirement?
2. Why are women underrepresented in the applicant pools and among those who
are considered for tenure?
3. Why aren’t more women in fields such as biology and chemistry applying to RI
tenure-track positions, as discussed in Finding 3-3?
4. Why do female faculty, compared to their male counterparts, appear to continue
to experience some sense of isolation in more subtle and intangible areas?
5. What is the impact of stop-the-clock policies on faculty careers?
6. What are the causes for the attrition of women and men prior to tenure decisions,
if indeed attrition does take place?
7. To what extent are women faculty rewarded beyond promotion to full professor?
8. What important, nonacademic issues affect men and women differentially that
impact their career choices at critical junctures?
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 12
12 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
Expanding the Scope
9. How important are differences among fields?
10. What are the experiences of faculty at Research II institutions?
11. What are the experiences of part-time and non-tenure track faculty?
PREPUBLICATION COPY
