|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 107
PREPUBLICATION COPY
5
Gender Differences in Tenure and Promotion
National faculty data show that women continue to be underrepresented at the
higher ranks of academia. While a partial explanation for the lower number of women at
higher ranks (associate and full professor levels) has to do with the fact that women are
newer entrants to academia—as noted in Chapter 3—a concern is that women faculty
spend more time in lower ranks and are less likely to be tenured or promoted. In this
chapter, we investigate whether women are, in fact, tenured or promoted at lower rates
than men and find that national faculty data indicate otherwise. Controlling for the
policies at their institutions, women who come up for tenure are tenured at greater rates
than men, and women are promoted from associate to full professor at rates similar to
those for men. The data, however, do not permit exploration of whether attrition prior to
these career milestones occurs differentially by gender.
This chapter considers the advancement of women through the professorial ranks.
It focuses on two critical junctures in most tenure-track faculty’s careers: the awarding of
tenure and promotion from assistant to associate professor, and promotion to full
professor.1 We do not discuss the transition of women from faculty positions to higher
leadership positions (e.g., deans, provosts, or presidents) in academia.2 To assess whether
gender disparities might exist in the tenure and promotion process, the chapter examines
three research questions:
• Are similar male and female faculty equally likely to receive tenure?
• Are similar male and female faculty equally likely to receive a promotion?
• Do male and female faculty spend equal amounts of time in professorial
ranks?
Tenure and promotion decisions are designed to be based on merit. Although
there may be some subjectivity in the determination of merit, the Committee wished to
compare rates of tenure and promotion for men and women who were similar along as
many dimensions, such as experience and productivity, as could be observed. Assuming
(1) men and women have similar talent, (2) are given similar amounts of time to
demonstrate their teaching excellence, research potential, and commitment to service, and
(3) are held to the same standard, then men and women should achieve similar tenure and
promotion results. Different results would occur if one or more of these assumptions are
false.
1
Some faculty remain associate professors and never come up for full professor status.
2
For a discussion of issues and strategies related to bringing women into executive positions in academia,
see NRC (2006).
107
OCR for page 108
108 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
This chapter draws on evidence from the study's surveys of Research Intensive
(RI) institution departments in the sciences and engineering3, which the committee
compared with data from other national surveys (primarily the National Science
Foundation’s Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR) or the National Survey of
Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) of the National Center for Education Statistics at the
U.S. Department of Education), as well as information drawn from gender equity studies
carried out by individual institutions.
An important limitation of most analyses of tenure and promotion decisions is that
they examine selected samples of those who succeeded in gaining tenure or promotion,
and those who are eligible for these advances but have not yet been considered. Many
studies examine the representation of women among tenured versus untenured faculty or
among full versus associate professors. Generally, there are no data on the decision-
making process itself.4 One methodological approach is to make the argument that one
would expect faculty who are ten years beyond being hired as assistant professors to be
tenured. It is then possible to compare the proportion of men and women who have in
fact received tenure. This comparison, however, omits the faculty who left prior to being
considered for tenure (possibly because they had been informed that they were unlikely
to receive it), as well as those who were considered, but not awarded tenure. A second
approach is to examine time spent in the assistant professor rank by those who were
promoted to associate professor and time spent as associate professor by those who were
promoted to full professor.
Longitudinal data tracking individual academic career trajectories from first hire
through tenure or departure are generally lacking, even in university-specific analyses.
This is an important gap that can be readily remedied through the efforts of institutional
researchers, with appropriate resources. This report’s analysis of departmental data does,
however, allow a direct examination of the tenure and promotion decisions since we
asked departments to report on every tenure and promotion case they considered in the
prior two years, independent of the outcome of the case. This allows us to obtain data on
both successful and unsuccessful tenure cases. However, it will not overcome any bias
due to attrition prior to these milestones.
The chapter first describes the nature of tenure and promotion processes in RI
institutions. Second, it describes the outcomes of tenure and promotion decisions.
Finally, the chapter uses multivariate methods to examine how tenure and promotion for
men and women are affected by university programs and policies, such as changes to the
tenure clock.
TENURE AND PROMOTION PROCESSES
Both tenure and promotion decisions are evaluations or reviews conducted by
peers of a faculty member’s professional activities, which lead to significant status
changes. Tenure can be considered as a change from a probationary or fixed length
appointment to an indefinite appointment. Such a change provides the faculty member
3
The committee acknowledges that the p-values for all of the data presented for the study’s surveys of
faculty and departments are unadjusted and the fact that many of the data presented are interconnected.
4
It may be the only time the decision-making process becomes publicly visible is during litigation brought
by faculty denied tenure or promotion.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 109
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 109
with greater freedom in their professional activities or greater economic security, or both,
although further promotions depend on continued research productivity and contributions
to teaching and service.
Promotions are changes in status, such as from assistant to associate or from
associate to full professor. The tenure decision and first promotion mark the transition
between tenure-track assistant professor to associate professor. Most often tenure and
promotion to associate professor occur at the same time, although some universities make
these decisions separately. In the committee’s survey, of 407 departments in RI
universities that responded, 318 (78 percent) granted tenure and promotion to associate
professor together in a single decision. Disaggregated by discipline, Table 5-1 shows that
between 72 and 79 percent of departments decide tenure and promotion together, with the
exception of chemistry, where 85 percent of 74 responding departments make one
decision.
Table 5-1 Percent of Responding Departments that Decide Tenure and Promotion
Together, by Discipline.
Discipline Percent of Departments
Biology 75
Chemistry 85
Civil Engineering 77
Electrical Engineering 79
Mathematics 79
Physics 72
SOURCE: Survey of departments carried out by the Committee on Gender Differences in
the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.
These decisions typically take place in the sixth year. Among the 407 responding
departments, the modal response was 6 years elapsing between hiring and the tenure
decision, with a range of 2 to 12 years. Fully 83 percent of departments indicated the
tenure decision was made in the 5th or 6th year. As shown in Table 5-2, similar results
were found within each discipline, with the exception of mathematics, where about one-
quarter of departments responded that untenured faculty come up for tenure in two to four
years.
From the vantage point of most tenure-track assistant professors, tenure may be
the seminal event in their professional lives. Certainly, the first several years of academic
life are spent building a dossier that will establish the case for granting tenure. The
tenure decision grants substantial job security, validation of quality of work, possible
monetary rewards (via salary adjustments), and increased institutional resources and
authority. Universities typically have an “up or out” policy after a given number of years
as a tenure-track assistant professor. If not granted tenure, the faculty member must leave
his or her position for another position not on the tenure track or for employment outside
the university. Faculty who believe they will not be granted tenure may choose to leave
before facing the decision.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 110
110 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
Table 5-2 Number of Years Between Hiring and Tenure Decision
Number of Years
Discipline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Biology 1.37 1.37 20.55 65.75 6.85 1.37 1.37 1.37
Chemistry 1.37 34.25 52.05 8.22 1.37 1.37 1.37
Civil 1.85 1.85 37.04 51.85 5.56 1.85
engineering
Electrical 32.2 50.85 15.25 1.69
engineering
Mathematics 1.43 12.86 11.43 27.14 44.29 2.86
Physics 1.32 10.53 26.32 56.58 5.26
NOTE: Numbers refer to percent of responding departments.
SOURCE: Survey of departments conducted by the Committee on Gender Differences in
the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.
.
A second promotion marks the transition between associate professor and full
professor; it is optional because some faculty may simply stay at the associate professor
rank—although this was truer in the past than for current faculty. This decision also
occurs several years after the first promotion.
These decisions are made, first, by a tenure or promotion committee comprised of
departmental colleagues, typically followed by evaluation at successively higher
administrative levels, such as a college or school-wide committee, a dean, a provost or
vice president for academic affairs, and the president of the institution. Exactly who is
involved differs depending on the university, but such oversight is typical. The first
decision would be made by the tenured departmental faculty, and administrators can
support or reverse lower level decisions. The candidate generally provides a full
curriculum vitae (C.V.); a statement describing their research accomplishments and
goals; teaching history; teaching evaluations; and service to their department, university
and profession; and copies of selected publications. Outside evaluations of research
contributions of the applicant are generally solicited by the department from leading
researchers located at other universities in the applicant’s field. Sometimes internal
evaluations are solicited from the same or other departments as the candidate’s
department.
Service on Tenure and Promotion Committees
Women are likely to serve on tenure committees but unlikely to chair them. As
shown in Table 5-3, in 57 percent of tenure cases, there was at least one woman present
on the tenure committee. In 690 cases where the gender of the committee chair was
known, it was a man in 90 percent of the cases. It was similar for promotion cases, as in
51 percent of the promotion cases there was at least one woman present on the promotion
committee. In 459 cases where the gender of the committee chair was known, it was a
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 111
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 111
woman in 13 percent of these cases. (See p. 120 for an explanation of the use of the
summary survey data.)
TABLE 5-3 Female Participation in Tenure and Promotion Committees.
Tenure Cases Promotion Cases
with at Least One Tenure Cases with at Least One Promotion Cases
Woman on the Woman on the
with a Woman with a Woman
Field Committee (%) Chair (%) Committee (%) Chair (%)
All fields 57 (768) 10 (690) 51 (508) 13 (459)
Biological sciences 74 (142) 11 (122) 71 (80) 20 (69)
Chemistry 55 (121) 11 (115) 58 (80) 7 (72)
Civil engineering 59 (115) 9 (108) 47 (73) 13 (63)
Electrical 57 (113) 16 (102) 57 (95) 20 (89)
engineering
Mathematics 54 (147) 3 (125) 41 (86) 6 (77)
Physics 40 (130) 8 (118) 37 (94) 10 (89)
NOTE: Number of cases in each field is in parentheses.
SOURCE: Survey of departments carried out by the Committee on Gender Differences in
Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty
EQUITY IN TENURE AND PROMOTION DECISIONS
The reason to ask whether there is equity in tenure and promotion decisions today
is that there is a body of evidence suggesting there is inequity. Specifically, the literature
suggests that women as a group are less likely to receive tenure or a promotion (and it
may take longer for women to reach those milestones). This section reviews several key
studies on gender and tenure and promotion, and identifies two reasons why there might
be differences regarding rates of and time to tenure and promotion.
Several quantitative studies found that women were less likely than men to be
tenured or promoted, or that women took longer to advance.5 Examples include NRC
(2001), Perna (2001a), Ginther (2001), and NSF (2004d). NRC (2001) examined gender
patterns in academic careers using data from selected years of the SDR: 1973, 1979,
1989, and 1995. Using a broad definition of S&E, which included the social sciences,
and examining a wide range of higher education institutions, NRC compared the
percentage of men and women who had tenure among all tenure-track faculty. In 1995,
60 percent of women had tenure and 40 percent were tenure-track, while 79 percent of
5
This general finding is commonly stated, even though individual institutions might have tenure or
promotion rates that are comparable for men and women. As Nancy Hopkins (2006:18) notes in the case of
MIT, “Overall the tenure rates for men and women are almost identical in both the Schools of Science and
Engineering.” Looking at a broader segment of academia is thus necessary to see if MIT, to continue the
example, is representative of many institutions or is an outlier.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 112
112 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
men had tenure and 21 percent were tenure-track. Second, NRC examined men and
women at different points in time in their careers, grouping men and women by the
number of years that had elapsed since they received their Ph.D.6 In examining men one
year out, two years out, three years out, etc., the 2001 NRC report found a greater
percentage of men were tenured than women (with the exception that a greater
percentage of women were tenured among very recent Ph.D.s). Finally, using logit
analysis, NRC found the that difference between the percentage of men with tenure and
the percentage of women with tenure favored men, even when controlling for factors
such as field, career age, and institution type. The 2001 NRC report also included
individual factors such as citizenship, marital status, and family status, in addition to
whether the institution was public or private. A parallel analysis for male and female
full professors found similar results.
Perna (2001a) sought, among other questions, to assess whether the probability of
being tenured or holding the rank of full professor was related to gender, after controlling
for other factors which might affect the tenure and promotion decision. Perna used logit
analysis on a different national data set, the 1993 NSOPF. Two findings are of interest:
“Women and men who are participating in the tenure process appear to be equally likely
to be tenured after taking into account other differences” (p. 561). On the other hand, the
study notes, “Tenured women faculty at 4-year institutions are less likely than tenured
men faculty to hold the highest rank of full professor even after controlling for
differences in human capital, research productivity, and structural characteristics” (p.
561).
Ginther’s analysis (2001) pooled cross-sectional samples of tenured or tenure-
track faculty from the 1973 to 1997 SDR. She created a second analysis file by linking
data on individuals who received a Ph.D. between 1972 and 1989 and who were sampled
across several SDR waves. Ginther used probit models and duration models to assess
whether there are gender disparities in the probability of “promotion to tenure.” Her
principal finding was “women are less likely to be promoted than men” (p. 20). Hazard
analysis also suggested that women are about 12 percent less likely to be tenured.
Like the Ginther study, a recent study conducted by the NSF (2004d) used linked
SDR data on individuals over time to examine whether gender was related to either
particular outcomes on the career path or how long it takes “doctorate recipients to
achieve career milestones” (p. 1). This study found that “women with eight or nine years
of postdoctoral experience are about 5.9 percentage points less likely than men to be
tenured. The comparable estimate for women with 14 or 15 years of experience is about
4.1 percentage points” (p. 3). Similarly, women were less likely to be full professors:
“After accounting for controls, women with 14 or 15 years of postdoctoral experience
who are employed full-time in academia are almost 14 percentage points less likely than
men to be employed at the rank of full professor. The comparable estimate for women
with 20 or 21 years of postdoctoral experience is similar” (p. 3).
Two competing hypotheses could underlie these findings. First, it could be that
women present weaker cases for tenure due to lower productivity. Alternatively,
women’s lower rates of promotion could result from bias that causes women with
equivalent qualifications to be judged less positively than similar male colleagues. With
6
This is done by subtracting the year an individual received a Ph.D. from the survey year.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 113
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 113
regard to the first hypothesis, the SDR provides some support for the case that women
faculty produced less scholarly output in terms of numbers of publications. It has been
proposed that women have fewer publications either because they receive fewer
resources from their universities to support research, or because women spend less time
on research. Although it is plausible that women could spend less time on professional
activities if they are the primary caregivers at home and have more responsibilities
outside of work, our data, presented in Chapter 4, show that in four of the six disciplines
considered, women and men spend comparable proportions of their time in research-
related activities.
The second rationale to explain why women might have a lower likelihood of
receiving tenure or a promotion is evaluative bias on the part of their peers during tenure
or promotion decisions. Bias may occur in several ways. First, women’s research may
be undervalued by colleagues. Second, women’s teaching evaluations may not be as
positive as those for men because of student bias. Third, women’s external letters of
recommendation may not be as positive.7 However, determination of which two
competing hypotheses provides the better explanation for why women take longer to
achieve career milestones can only be addressed through the collection of longitudinal
data tracking candidates as they go from degree to the various career stages.
A newer study on probability of faculty receiving tenure and promotions has
found a much more equitable situation. Ginther and Kahn (2006) recently examined
three issues with respect to gender differences: (1) the probability of holding a tenure-
track job within five years of receiving a Ph.D.; (2) for those who hold a tenure track job,
the probability of having tenure 11 years after receiving a Ph.D.; and (3) for those who
received tenure by 15 years past receipt of a Ph.D., the probability of being a full
professor 15 years after receipt of a Ph.D. The study drew on the entire SDR from 1973
through 2001. As summarized in their abstract, the authors found “that in science
overall, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor after
controlling for demographic, family, employer and productivity covariates and that in
many cases, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor even
without controlling for covariates.”
The next section presents descriptive data on tenure and promotion, based on data
collected in the committee’s departmental survey. By examining data on all tenure cases
evaluated in the prior two years, this analysis avoids the pitfall of studying only men and
women who currently hold faculty positions. The following section uses multivariate
methods to explore the effect of structural factors on promotion decisions for male and
female faculty.
TENURE AND PROMOTION AWARDS
Tenure Descriptive Data
In the case of tenure, the survey first asked whether departments engaged in any
tenure decisions during the past two academic years (2002-2003 and 2003-2004). Most
of the 417 responding departments (78 percent) indicated they did. Very similar results
7
See for instance Persell (1983) and McElrath (1992).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 114
114 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
were obtained by disaggregating the departmental responses by discipline. In all fields,
the percentage of departments indicating they had such tenure cases was between 75 and
84 percent.
Responding departments noted a total of 768 tenure decisions. Most decisions
were reported by public institutions (587), rather than private institutions (181). For
individual departments that reported any tenure decisions, the median response was two
tenure decisions (mean = 2.2), with a range from one to 15 decisions. By gender, 125
cases involved female faculty; 642 cases involved male faculty. In one case, the gender
was not reported. In addition, for nine cases, the tenure outcome was not reported by
departments.
Across all the departments sampled, 15 percent of the tenure candidates were
female, compared to 20 percent of the pool of assistant professors, a difference
significant at better than .01. There are a number of possible explanations for the smaller
proportion of women among tenure candidates compared to the proportion in the tenure
pool. If women are more likely than men to resign their position before being proposed
for tenure, then we would expect to see fewer women among the tenure candidates. On
the other hand, if departments have substantially increased their efforts to hire more
women on tenure-track appointments, the disparity may be due to the lag between the
time at which a faculty member is hired and the time at which he or she is put up for
tenure. Most institutions impose an upper bound on the number of years in which a
faculty can serve in a tenure-track position. Early tenure decisions—while not truly
rare—are not commonplace either. However, many universities allow for extending the
allotted time by up to two years to accommodate new parental responsibilities.
The findings on percentages of women among tenure candidates were not uniform
across disciplines. Women were most likely to be underrepresented in the fields where
they accounted for the largest share of the faculty. Female faculty were considered for
tenure in 27 percent of the cases in biology and 15 percent of the cases in chemistry. In
both fields, their representation among the assistant professor pool was greater—36
percent of the pool in biology and 22 percent of the pool in chemistry. In the remaining
four fields, the differences in representation were less pronounced, although in every case
the percentage of women among tenure candidates was less than in the tenure pool. The
percentage of women among tenure candidates was 16 percent in civil engineering, 11
percent in electrical engineering, 16 percent in mathematics, and 12 percent in physics.
During the same period, the percentage of female tenure-track assistant professors was 23
percent in civil engineering, 13 percent in electrical engineering, 22 percent in
mathematics, and 16 percent in physics.
Contrary to the implication from previous research that the lower proportion of
women among tenured relative to untenured faculty results from a lower probability of a
positive tenure decision for women, the committee’s data showed the opposite.
Controlling only for field and gender of the candidate, we that find a woman is
marginally more likely than a man to receive tenure (p = 0.0567). As shown in Table 5-4,
men received tenure in 548 out of 633 cases (87 percent); women received tenure in 115
out of 125 cases (92 percent). (See p. 120 for an explanation of the use of summary
survey data.).8 Disaggregated by field, women had a significantly higher proportion of
8
In 9 cases involving men who were up for tenure, the outcome was unknown.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 115
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 115
being granted tenure only in chemistry, where each female faculty member up for tenure
was successful. In the other fields, the differences were not significantly different for
men and women.
TABLE 5-4 Tenure Award Rates, by Gender and Discipline
Male Female
Not Percentage Not Percentage
Discipline Granted not Granted Granted Granted not Granted Total
Granted
All fields 548 85 13.4 115 10 8.0 758
Biology 89 15 14.4 33 5 13.2 142
Chemistry 79 22 21.8 18 0 0.0 119
Civil Engineering 76 15 16.5 15 3 20.0 109
Electrical
Engineering 91 10 9.9 12 0 0.0 113
Mathematics 106 16 13.1 23 1 4.2 146
Physics 107 7 6.1 14 1 6.7 129
NOTE: In one case, the gender of the individual up for tenure was unknown, and in 9
cases, the tenure outcome was not reported.
SOURCE: Survey of departments conducted by the Committee on Gender Differences in
Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.
Promotion Descriptive Data
We investigated next whether gender differences exist at the juncture of
promotion from associate professor to full professor. Of 411 departments responding to
the survey, 70 percent indicated they had considered a case of promotions to full
professor during two academic years (2002-2003 and 2003-2004). Over all the fields, 90
percent of men and 88 percent of women proposed for full professor were promoted (see
p. 120 for an explanation of the use of summary survey data.). The difference between
rates for men and women was not statistically significant, nor were any of the discipline-
specific differences shown in Table 5-5.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 116
116 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
TABLE 5-5 Promotion to Full Professor, by Gender and Discipline
Male Female
Percentage Percentage
Not Not Not Not
Discipline Promoted Promoted Promoted Promoted Promoted Promoted Total
All fields 387 43 10.0 65 9 12.2 504
Biology 50 11 18.0 17 2 10.5 80
Chemistry 65 4 5.8 10 1 9.1 80
Civil
Engineering 53 6 10.2 10 3 23.1 72
Electrical
Engineering 69 10 12.7 14 2 12.5 95
Mathematics 68 9 11.7 7 1 12.5 85
Physics 82 3 3.5 7 0 0.0 92
SOURCE: Survey of departments conducted by the Committee on Gender Differences in
Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty .
Most of the 504 cases reported involved public institutions (402), rather than
private institutions (106). For individual departments that reported some decisions, the
median response was one promotion decision (mean = 2), with a range from 1 to 16
decisions. Disaggregated by gender, 74 cases involved female faculty and 433 cases
involved male faculty. In one case, the gender was not reported. In addition, among the
508 total cases, the outcome was not reported in three cases.
Disaggregated by discipline, female faculty were considered for promotion to full
professor in 24 percent of the cases in biology, 14 percent in chemistry, 18 percent in
civil engineering, 17 percent in electrical engineering, 9 percent in mathematics, and 7
percent in physics. During the period covered by the faculty survey, the proportion of
women among associate professors in the different disciplines was: 28 percent in biology,
18 percent in chemistry, 15 percent in civil engineering, 13 percent in electrical
engineering, 15 percent in mathematics and 8 percent in physics. It appears that women
are proposed for promotion to the highest academic rank at approximately the same rates
at which they are represented among associate professors.
Factors Influencing Tenure and Promotion Decisions
The outcome of a tenure or promotion decision is the product of individual and
departmental characteristics. Individual characteristics focus on evaluations of the
faculty member’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. In the area of research, this may focus
on a professor’s productivity, measured in terms of publications (i.e., journal articles,
books, and chapters), presentations to conferences, or ability to obtain grants. Teaching
evaluations are used as a metric of instructional performance, as is the amount and
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 117
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 117
quality of graduate student supervision. Counts of how many and what kind of university
committees and outside professional activities in which a faculty member is involved,
and in what capacity, are used to measure service.
Factors affecting these research, teaching, and service performance measures can
also have an indirect effect on tenure decisions. Faculty with children, for example, may
have less time to pursue research or service activities, and this may reduce a faculty
member’s chances of being granted tenure. Departments with policies that aid faculty
who would otherwise be more negatively affected by family issues—for example,
institutions that provide child care or family leave—might mitigate the negative effects of
these indirect factors and thereby aid the tenure chances of those faculty members
particularly affected by family issues.
Departmental and institutional characteristics also directly affect tenure outcomes.
In the most obvious case, both male and female faculty will have lower probabilities of
gaining tenure in departments that rarely grant tenure to assistant professors, preferring
instead to hire tenured associate or full professors. Different institutions—measured in
terms of prestige or type (public versus private)—may grant tenure or promotion at
different thresholds. For example, “nationally, about 60 percent of scholars competing
for university and college tenure slots gain permanent appointments. At MIT, it is
estimated almost 50 percent of the men and women on the tenure track will be invited to
make their permanent intellectual home at the Institute.”9
The Committee’s survey asked for departments to report institutional
characteristics related to individual tenure decisions, but did not ask department
respondents to provide information on the individual faculty member beyond their gender
and the outcome of the case. Therefore, the model developed here is intentionally
underspecified. It does not include likely salient individual factors that influence tenure
outcomes. It focuses instead on examining departmental characteristics and policies that
might help or hinder female as opposed to male faculty. Factors of particular interest
include:
Department size. Larger departments may have more slots available and may
therefore provide more opportunities for an assistant professor to advance.
Stopping the tenure clock. Many universities allow faculty to stop or extend the
tenure clock if they have a qualifying event, such as the need to care for a family
member. Generally, universities limit the number of years that can be added to the period
before an assistant professor must be considered for promotion. Either male or female
faculty can qualify for delaying the tenure clock. However, use of stopping the tenure
clock policies does extend the period of uncertainty for faculty. In our faculty survey, 78
percent of assistant professors reported their department or university had a formal family
or personal leave policy that allows stopping or extending the tenure clock.
Transparency of tenure and promotion policies. It has been argued that unclear
tenure or promotion policies would be particularly detrimental to women if women
faculty are less likely to have mentors and obtain information through informal channels.
9
Anonymous. Women and Tenure at the Institute. MIT News Office March 1, 1999. Available at:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1999/trwomen.html. See also Hopkins (2006).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 130
130 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
FIGURE 5-3(c) Survival Curves in Electrical Engineering at Highest Prestige
Institutions.
FIGURE 5-3(d) Survival Curves in Electrical Engineering at Medium Prestige
Institutions.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 131
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 131
The plots shown in Figure 5-3 reflect some of the complexities in the relationship
between time in rank as assistant professor, current rank, gender, and prestige of the
institution. For example, consider first biology. We note that at high-prestige institutions
and at any time point t + 1, a male who was currently a full professor had a higher chance
of getting promoted and tenured than a male who was currently an associate professor,
and in turn, they both had a higher chance of promotion at month t + 1 (given that they
had not been promoted until then) than a woman who was currently a full professor or a
woman who was currently an associate professor. These differences vanish, however, if
we consider institutions of medium prestige. In that case, while a man who was currently
a full professor still had a higher chance of getting promoted at any time, given he has not
been promoted earlier, there were no differences between faculty who were currently
associate professors or women who were currently full professors. In the case of
electrical engineering, we observed a similar pattern even though the probability of
promotion increased to one at a faster rate.
Academic age (time between receipt of Ph.D. and hire as tenure track assistant
professor) was negatively and significantly associated with time as assistant professor:
The longer the time elapsed between Ph.D. and hire, the shorter the time spent in rank as
assistant. This finding is consistent with the greater publication record faculty who have
spent time as postdocs can present at the time of a tenure review. Academic age may
contribute to the gender differential seen in the simple means of time in rank by gender,
since the effect of academic age is significantly stronger for men than for women (p <
0.0001). This greater impact may reflect that men may be more likely than women to
spend time after receiving their doctorate and prior to taking their first academic job
pursuing professional activities, such as postdoctoral research.
Another important factor affecting time in rank as assistant professor is the
increasingly available option to take family leave and stop the tenure clock. Our results
show a very significant effect of stopping the tenure clock (p-value < 0.0001; see Table
5-12). The “risk” of promotion of a faculty member who stopped the tenure clock is only
about 80 percent of the “risk” of promotion of a faculty member who did not, given that
neither had been already promoted at a given time. Consider, as an example, two faculty
members with similarly impressive academic credentials so that their “risk” of promotion
becomes one if enough time has elapsed since hiring. If one of them takes a one-year
leave at the beginning of his or her probationary period, then he or she will lag behind the
person who did not take the leave with respect to promotion status, but the difference in
the “risk” of promotion will get smaller and smaller as the overall probabilities of
promotion for both of them become larger. The effect of this factor was similar for both
men and women. However, our data confirm that women were more likely to take family
leave. Table 5-13 shows that 10.2 percent of women associate professors and 6.4 percent
of men stopped the tenure clock. Also, stopping the clock is becoming more common
over time. Virtually no faculty who are currently full professors stopped the clock, but
among associate professors, 19.7 percent of women and 7.4 percent of men have already
stopped the clock. These percentages are likely to continue growing in the future.
One question our survey does not permit addressing is whether a faculty member
who stopped the tenure clock has a decreased probability of promotion. To answer that
question we would need a longitudinal study where faculty can be followed from the time
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 132
132 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
they were hired until the time they were promoted. Our survey, which collected a
snapshot cross-sectional set of data, is not appropriate for this type of question.
Another important factor affecting time in rank as assistant professor is the
increasingly available option to take family leave and stop the tenure clock. Our results
show a very significant effect of stopping the tenure clock (p < 0.0001). Faculty who
stopped the tenure clock had a lower chance of promotion to associate professor at any
time (given they had not been promoted until then) than those who did not stop the clock.
Everything else being equal, a faculty member who stopped the tenure clock had about a
fifth of the probability of promotion at any given time than did a faculty member who did
not stop the clock. The effect of this factor was similar for both men and women faculty.
However, our data confirm that women were more likely to take family leave. Table 5-
13 shows 10.2 percent of women associate professors and 6.4 percent of men stopped the
tenure clock. Stopping the clock is becoming more common over time. Virtually no
faculty who are currently full professors stopped the clock, but among current assistant
professors 19.7 percent of women and 7.4 percent of men had already stopped the clock.
Given the percentages for current assistant professors include some faculty who have
several years to go before they are considered for tenure, these percentages will likely
grow.
Males who are full professors today spent the least time in rank as assistant
professors. This is true across all disciplines, prestige of institution, and other factors.
Whether males who are currently associate professors have spent more or less time in
rank as assistant than women who are currently full professors depends on the institution
and discipline. It is probably fair to state that females who are currently associate
professors have spent the longest time in rank as assistant professors in most cases.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 133
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 133
TABLE 5-13 Number of Faculty by Gender and Rank Who Reported Stopping or Not
Stopping the Tenure Clock or Who Did Not Respond to the Survey Question.
Stopped Did not Stop
Gender and rank Clock Clock Nonrespondent Total
Male full professor 1 52 261 (83) 314
Female full Professor 2 46 18 (80) 237
Male associate professor 14 137 68 (31) 219
Female associate professor 29 184 71 (25) 284
Male assistant professor 17 211 2 (0.8) 230
Female assistant professor 56 226 2 (0.7) 284
NOTES: Numbers in parentheses are percentage of non-respondents in each group.
Only full-time faculty with a Ph.D. and with the rank of assistant, associate, or full
professor were used in the calculation. There were 1,568 such faculty. Note that many of
these individuals are missing information on other variables and thus this table includes
many more persons than most of the other tables in Chapter 5.
SOURCE: Faculty survey conducted by the Committee on Gender Differences in Careers
of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.
Faculty in biology, physics, and civil engineering are similar in terms of time in
rank as assistant professor. In chemistry, math, and electrical engineering, the time to
promotion to associate professor was similar and significantly shorter. The difference
between disciplines was similar for both genders. There were no significant differences
between private and public institutions once all other effects were accounted for.
Results for the measure of time elapsed between award of Ph.D. and promotion to
associate professor with tenure were different and easier to interpret from the results
discussed above. Using this measure, the time in rank as assistant did not differ between
men and women (although it took women slightly longer to be promoted to associate
from the time of graduation with a Ph.D.), nor did it differ across institutions of different
prestige. Time elapsed between Ph.D. and promotion to associate was highest for faculty
who were currently associate professors (as before) and for faculty in biology relative to
the other disciplines.
Multivariate Modeling of Time in Associate Professor Rank
To examine what institutional and individual characteristics influence the number
of months full professors in our sample spent as associate professors before being
promoted, we examined data on 265 respondents. It was necessary to limit the sample to
those full professors who had remained at the same institution since they were hired as
assistant professors in order to obtain relevant data on institutional characteristics and
policies. The sample does not include 20 cases who reported first being promoted to
associate professor without tenure and then to associate professor with tenure. The
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 134
134 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
attrition in the analysis sample due to data constraints limits the generalizability of the
results to faculty who progressed from assistant professor to associate professor with
tenure and then to full professor at the same institution.
Time in rank as associate—computed as the difference in months between first
promotion to associate with tenure and promotion to full professor—was modeled as a
function of individual characteristics (including gender, discipline, and academic age)
and institutional characteristics (including public/private university, prestige, tenure clock
policy, and percent of female faculty in the department). All two-way interactions with
gender were also estimated. We again used a Cox proportional hazards regression model
to explore the association between time in rank as associate and institutional and
individual attributes.
Overall, there was no significant difference between male and female faculty in
the time spent as an associate professor. Faculty (both male and female) at the higher-
prestige institutions spent longest in rank as associate professors, while males at the
lowest-prestige institutions received promotion earliest. For example, in biology, the
probability of promotion after about 8.5 years in rank as associate professor was
approximately 80 percent at institutions of highest prestige for both men and women. At
institutions of lower prestige, about 80 percent of the men were promoted after five years
in rank as associate, while 6.8 years elapsed before 80 percent of the women at the
lowest-prestige institutions received promotion to full professor. Women in universities
ranked in the bottom two tertiles spent about the same amount of time in the associate
rank. There were no statistically significant differences across disciplines or between
public and private institutions. Academic age was positively associated with time in rank.
Figure 5-4 shows the (conditional) probability of promotion to full professor at
month t + 1 given that no promotion had occurred until month t. The six curves
correspond to prestige of the institution (highest = light gray, middle = dark gray, lowest
= black) and to gender (solid = male, dotted = female). Figure 5-4a was drawn for
biology at a private institution with 17 percent female faculty, and Figure 5-4b was drawn
for electrical engineering.
Figure 5-4 (a-b) shows the (conditional) probability of promotion to full professor
at month t + 1 given that no promotion had occurred until month t. The six curves
correspond to prestige of the institution (highest = light gray, middle = dark gray, lowest
= black) and to gender (solid = male, dotted = female). Figure 5-4a was drawn for
biology at a private institution with 17 percent female faculty, and Figure 5-4b was drawn
for electrical engineering.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 135
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 135
FIGURE 5-4 (a) One minus the probability of promotion to full professor for
males (solid curves) and females (dashed curves) in biology. Light gray denotes
institutions of highest prestige, dark gray represents institutions of medium prestige and
black represents institutions of lower prestige.
FIGURE 5-4 (b): One minus the probability of promotion to full professor for
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 136
136 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
males (solid curves) and females (dashed curves) in electrical engineering. Light gray
denotes institutions of highest prestige, dark gray represents institutions of medium
prestige and black represents institutions of lower prestige.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The survey results yielded some surprising findings about the award of tenure,
promotion to full professor, and time and rank for female and male faculty members.
Award of Tenure
Finding 5-1: 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. 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). Note, however, that the probability of representation in
the tenure pool in a cross-sectional study such as this is completely confounded with
time.
Finding 5-2: Given that the interaction between the gender of the candidate and
the proportion of females in the tenure-track pool was statistically significant (p
= 0.012), women appeared to be more likely to be promoted when there was a
smaller proportion of females among the tenure-track faculty, resulting in a
greater difference between men and women in their tenure success in
departments with fewer women assistant professors. (Figures 5-1 and 5-2 and
Appendix 5-3)
Finding 5-3: Women were more likely than men to receive tenure when they
came up for tenure review. When controlling only for field and gender of the
candidate, we found that women were marginally more likely than men to receive
tenure (p =.0567). Women received tenure in 92 percent of the cases (115 out of 125)
versus 87 percent of the cases for men (548 out of 633). (Table 5-4)
Finding 5-4: 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) versus private institutions (85 percent; p = 0.029).
(Appendix 5-2)
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 137
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 137
Finding 5-5: Eighty-eight percent of both male and female survey respondents
stated that they knew their institution’s policy on tenure. Eighty-one percent of
male faculty knew their institution’s policies on promotion. However, only 75
percent of female faculty respondents knew their institution’s policy on
promotion, which is statistically significant (p = 0.02). (Appendix 5-1)
Promotion to Full Professor
Finding 5-6: 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. There were no significant differences in the
probability of promotion to full professor due to gender of the candidate, after
accounting for other potentially important factors such as disciplinary differences,
departmental size, and use of stopping-the-clock policies. Once proposed for
promotion to full professor, women and men appear to have fared about the same
across all types of institutions and departments. (Table 5-5)
Finding 5-7: Women were proposed for promotion to full professor at
approximately the same rates as they were represented among associate
professors. Female faculty in biology were considered for promotion in 24 percent of
the cases (28 percent of the associate professor pool); 14 percent of the cases in
chemistry (18 percent of the pool); 18 percent of the cases in civil engineering (14
percent of the pool); 17 percent of cases in electrical engineering (13 percent of the
pool); 9 percent of cases in mathematics (15 percent of the pool); and 7 percent of the
cases in physics (8 percent of the pool). (Table 5-5)
Time in Rank
Finding 5-8: Time in rank as an assistant professor has grown over time for both
male and female faculty. Men who were full professors at the time of the survey had
spent the least amount of time in rank as assistant professors. This was true across all
disciplines.
Finding 5-9: Women who were associate professors at the time of the survey had
averaged a significantly longer time in rank as assistant professors in all fields
except electrical engineering, where women’s shorter time in rank was not
significantly different (p = 0.999). It is difficult to determine whether these apparent
differences persist once we control for individual and departmental characteristics
such as length of postdoctoral experience and stopping the clock for family leave.
While women did appear to remain at the rank of assistant professor longer than men,
the differences between genders depended upon factors like the prestige of the
institution, the time elapsed since the completion of the doctoral degree, and the
current rank of the individual. Both male and female faculty spent longer in assistant
professor ranks at institutions of higher prestige. (Table 5-9)
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 138
138 GENDER DIFFERNCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
Finding 5-10: 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. Although the effect of stopping-the-clock on the probability
of promotion and tenure was 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. (Table 5-13)
Finding 5-11: There is no significant difference between male and female faculty
in terms of the time spent as an associate professor. Time in rank as associate
professor is significantly associated with the prestige of the institution. Faculty at
lower prestige institutions tend to be promoted to full professor earlier than those at
the highest prestige institutions. (See Figures 5-4a and 5-4b for examples in biology
and electrical engineering.)
Time from Receipt of Ph.D.
Finding 5-12: Overall, it appears that women faculty took significantly longer
from receipt of Ph.D. to promotion to associate professor with tenure, but this
gender effect was confounded with current rank, discipline, and other factors. It
is difficult to determine whether these apparent differences persist once we control for
individual and departmental characteristics such as length of postdoctoral experience
and stopping the clock for family leave. While women did appear to remain at the
rank of assistant professor longer than men, the differences between gender depended
on factors including the prestige of the institution, the time elapsed since completion
of the doctoral degree, and the current rank of the individual. (Table 5-12)
Finding 5-13: The longer the time elapsed between receipt of the Ph.D. and hire
as an assistant professor, the shorter the time spent in rank before gaining
tenure. Academic age may contribute to the gender differential seen in the simple
means of time in rank by gender, since the effect of academic age was significantly
stronger for men than for women (p < 0.0001).
Our findings, which focus on the tenure and promotion decisions themselves
rather than the proportions of tenured women or female full professors, differ from
previous studies that indicated women fare worse than men, both in receiving tenure and
in being granted a promotion. It does appear that women spend longer in assistant
professor positions than men, but the complex interplay between different factors and the
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 139
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN TENURE AND PROMOTION 139
small number of cases for analysis limit the extent to which we can state that gender is
associated (or not) with time in rank.
This study’s findings on the success of women faculty in obtaining tenure may
relate to the particular focus on scientists and engineers at the most research-oriented
universities. Alternatively, these results may reflect an improved climate for women
scientists and engineers in RI universities, given that our data examine a relatively recent
period (2002-2003 and 2003-2004).
The findings on women’s relative success in the tenure decision process relate
importantly to our findings on time in rank. The greater time in rank as assistant professor
among female faculty who are currently associate professors compared to men can be
partly attributed to women’s greater use of stop-the-clock policies.
The committee interprets these data as indicating that tenure clock-stopping
policies allowed women who are currently associate professors sufficient flexibility to
both assemble a strong tenure case and tend to family responsibilities. In contrast, the
cohort who are currently full professors did not benefit from the recently enacted clock-
stopping policies, and thus these women would have had to meet the same timetable as
men, despite their greater family caretaking responsibilities. If they had not met the same
deadlines they would not have been granted tenure and promotion and would not now be
found among the ranks of full professors.
The growth in time in rank for assistant professors may be attributable in part to
increasing expectations about scholarly productivity, reinforcing the need for women to
avail themselves of family leave if they are to successfully earn tenure. Clock-stopping
policies, which are taken advantage of by both male and female faculty, further increase
the average length of time faculty spend as assistant professors and thereby extend the
period of uncertainty for these faculty.
These findings suggest there have been major changes over time in women’s
opportunities to succeed in academic careers. If some of these changes can be attributed
to changes in university policies such as the clock-stopping policy for family care, this is
good news. It suggests that universities can change long-established policies that might
have prevented one group of scientists and engineers from advancing to permanent
careers within the institution. It also opens the door to considering other established
university policies that may hinder our country’s ability to profit from creativity of all
trained scientists, both male and female. For example, one policy that might be opened
for reexamination is the usual requirement that all assistant professor appointments be
full time. Part-time appointments would allow both women and men the opportunity to
better balance family and career over time.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 140
