|
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 13
PREPUBLICATION COPY
1
INTRODUCTION
The 1999 report, A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT1, 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, there has been concern 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 PhDs in science and engineering increased from 31.7 percent (in 1996) to 37.7
percent (in 2005). 2 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 2003.3 However,
women continued to be underrepresented among academic faculty relative to the number of
women 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 and professors.4
The evidence for disparities in the treatment of women and men is mixed. In some cases
(e.g. with regard to salaries), there are strong quantitative data. In other cases (e.g.
marginalization), the evidence is more anecdotal. Still in other instances, the evidence is scant or
missing. Assessing whether search committee members are biased in their evaluations of male
and female candidates could be—and has been—done in essentially a laboratory-like setting, but
there are no publicly available national data to draw on.
1
See Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999)
2
National Science Foundation (2006). Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1 (now in the appendices).
3
National Science Foundation, Survey of Doctoral Recipients, 1995-2003 and Figure 2-3 (now in appendices).
4
See Appendix Table 5-28.
13
OCR for page 14
GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
14
WHY DISPARITIES MATTER
Interest in studying the disparities between the careers of men and women faculty is
widespread. Government agencies, legislators, and organizations, including many professional
societies, have a vested interest in promoting science and engineering education and careers and
encouraging a diverse set of students and graduates to enter and remain in S&E. Administrators
in the academic community need benchmarks to help set the context in which universities
conduct their own self-examinations—as many already do. S&E students considering academia
among their career options are seeking better information about career prospects and challenges.
Why is an assessment needed now? Three reasons support this.5 First, the nature of the
academic profession is changing in several important ways, including the composition of the
profession, reward structure, and professional activities. Due in part to diminishing financial
resources and increasing costs facing higher education institutions, hiring into tenure-track
positions has slowed, while the number of part-time, temporary, and off-track positions has
increased. Such changes may affect female academics differently than male academics.
Second, substantial efforts to increase women’s participation as faculty in higher
education have been underway for three decades. They include programs and policies at the
federal level, by professional societies, and by universities and individual academic departments.
At the federal level, one example is the NSF’s ADVANCE program. Scientific and professional
societies focused on women generally or in specific disciplines have collected relevant data and
undertaken support programs to encourage women in the profession (e.g., the Association for
Women in Science (AWIS), the Society for Women in Engineering (SWE), the Committee on
the Status of Women in Physics (CSWP) and the Caucus for Women in Statistics). Higher
education institutions have conducted gender equity studies and developed work-life policies for
faculty and staff.6 An assessment of changes in faculty composition as well as policies and
outcomes related to faculty careers is one step in evaluating these efforts.
Finally, where gender disparities exist and women are underrepresented among S&E
faculty, negative consequences result that require policy solutions. Substantial resources go into
producing a Ph.D. in S&E.7 The untapped potential of fully trained and credentialed women, as
well as the women who are interested in S&E but choose not to pursue degrees because of
obstacles, real or perceived, represents an important economic loss--one a competitive United
States cannot afford. As Senator Ron Wyden (2003) stated:
A report from the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security to 2025
warned that America’s failure to invest in science and to reform math and science
education was the second biggest threat to our national security, greater than that
from any conceivable conventional war. America will not remain the power it is
in the world today, nor will our people be as healthy, as educated, or as
5
See also the four reasons suggested by NAS, NAE and IOM (2007): global competitiveness, law, economics, and
ethics.
6
For a list of gender equity studies conducted by Research I institutions, see the CWSEM Website at:
www.nas.edu/cwsem.
7
The average annual support for a doctoral student is $50,000 according to a new study (NAS, NAE, and IOM,
2007). The average doctoral student takes 7 years to complete a Ph.D., suggesting support for a single student could
be $350,000.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 15
INTRODUCTION 15
prosperous as they should be, if we do not lead the world in scientific research
and engineering development. To make our country better, to improve our
national security and quality of life, we need to encourage people to go into these
disciplines. Women represent a largely untapped resource in achieving this vital
goal.
Similarly, Neal Lane, former Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, remarked to
the Summit on Women in Engineering (1999) that “we simply need people with the best minds
and skills, and many of those are women.” This view was echoed by leaders of nine top research
universities in a meeting at MIT in 2001 to discuss women faculty in science and engineering. A
joint statement issued by the participants noted, “institutions of higher education have an
obligation, both for themselves and for the nation, to fully develop and utilize all creative talent
available. We recognize that barriers still exist to the full participation of women in science and
engineering” (Campbell, 2001b).
A more inclusive workforce may be more innovative and productive than one which is
less so. As Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation, said in 2005,
Year by year, the economic imperative grows for broadening, empowering, and
sharpening the skills of the entire U.S. workforce—just to remain competitive in the
global community. This fresh talent is our most potent mechanism for technology transfer
to our systems of innovation. Fortunately, we have a fount of untapped talent in our
women, underrepresented minorities and persons with disabilities. Our need to broaden
participation and increase opportunity is critical, for both the science and education
communities and the nation.8
“Having scientists and engineers with diverse backgrounds, interests, and cultures assures better
scientific and technological results and the best use of those results…” (Lane, 1999). If, for
example, women approach the process of S&E teaching or research differently or generate
different, important outcomes (findings, publications, patents, etc.), then their relative exclusion
somewhat diminishes the potential of academia (Xie and Shauman, 2003:footnote 2). A
comparison of data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Faculty
Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), indicates that when faculty emphasized effective
educational practices, students tended to engage more in those practices. Interestingly, the FSSE
found women were more likely than men to value and use effective educational practices (Kuh et
al, 2004).
“ ‘Academic institutions play a pivotal role in preparing the science and engineering
work force, and their faculty and leaders serve as intellectual, personal, and organizational role
models that shape the expectations of future scientists and engineers,’ said Alice Hogan, NSF's
former ADVANCE program manager. ‘Ensuring that the climate, the policies and the practices
at these institutions encourage and support the full participation of women in all aspects of
academic life, including leadership and governance, is critical to attracting students to science
and engineering careers (Harms, 2001)’ .”
8
Arden L. Bement, Jr., “Remarks, Setting the Agenda for 21st Century Science” at the meeting of the Council of
Scientific Society Presidents, December 5, 2005. Available at:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/bement/05/alb051205_societypres.jsp
OCR for page 16
GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
16
Women are students before they enter the workforce. Women faculty, by acting as role
models, produce the next generation of scholars and are associated with greater production of
female S&E students. According to Trower and Chait (2002:34), the “most accurate predictor of
subsequent success for female undergraduates is the percentage of women among faculty
members at their college.”
Finally, there are legal prescriptions prohibiting discrimination and questioning the
propriety of disparities (see NAS, NAE and IOM, 2007 for a review of antidiscrimination laws).
The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 all focus on prohibiting sex discrimination. Title IX is a
particularly relevant piece of legislation, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in
federally assisted education programs or activities. Most frequently invoked to promote equal
access to athletic programs, Title IX also covers employment, and a 2004 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report suggested efforts to enforce compliance with Title IX
should be applied more broadly to educational institutions. The Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act of 1980 declares “it is the policy of the United States that men and women
have equal opportunity in education, training and employment in scientific and technical fields.”
As Lane (1999) noted, “careers in science and engineering are immensely rewarding, and all
Americans should have the opportunity to participate—it’s what America is all about.”
THE COMMITTEE’S CHARGE
The concern that inequities still exist, as well as the need for empirical evidence to
conduct a search for disparities, prompted this study. 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, engineering, and technology.9 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 data10. 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.”
To meet this charge, the National Academies appointed an ad hoc study committee—the
Committee on Gender Differences in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Faculty—to examine this issue under the auspices of the Committee on Women in Science and
Engineering (CWSE) and the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT). (Appendix 1-1
identifies the members of the study committee and describes their areas of expertise.) The
committee was guided by the following statement of task:
9
See Statement of Senator Ron Wyden, Hearing on Title IX and Science, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, October 3, 2002.
10
In addition to this activity, the Government Accounting Office was asked to complete a study on Title IX (GAO,
2004), and the Rand Corporation conducted a study on gender differences in federal funding (Hosek et al., 2005).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 17
INTRODUCTION 17
An ad hoc committee will conduct a study to 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.
APPROACH AND SCOPE
Approach
The committee interpreted its charge to include three goals: to update earlier analyses
with newer information, to provide a more thorough understanding of the scope of potential
gender differences in S&E faculty , and to recommend methods for further informing or
clarifying assumptions about gender and academic careers. Establishing causes for any observed
differences, while an important task, was considered to be beyond the scope of the charge. For
purposes of this report, science and engineering are defined 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).11
The committee understood the charge as focusing primarily on major research universities—
known as the Research I (RI) or Research-intensive institutions—for several reasons.12 First, the
committee believed gender disparities, if present, are more likely to occur in these institutions.
Second, findings for research universities are likely to serve as a good starting point for the
consideration of gender disparities in other sectors of higher education. Finally, and most
important, as is discussed more fully below, research universities play especially important roles
in training doctoral students and future scholars and faculty.
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
11
The term “sciences and engineering” is often defined as the academic disciplines of: physical sciences (including
astronomy, chemistry, and physics); earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences; mathematical and computer sciences;
biological and agricultural sciences; and engineering (in all its forms). Additionally, psychology and the social
sciences (including economics, political science, and sociology) may also be treated as science fields. Non-S&E
fields are defined to include the various arts and humanities. The natural sciences and engineering are defined in
this study as agricultural sciences, biological sciences, health sciences, engineering, computer and information
sciences, mathematics, and physical sciences. Further gradations can be seen in the Survey of Earned Doctorates list
of fields of study. Our definition includes Ph.D. fields coded as between 005 and 599, inclusive. Refer to the
questionnaire, an example of which is found at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06308/pdf/nsf06308.pdf.
12
Research I institutions are defined as institutions which offer, beyond baccalaureate programs, doctoral programs
which award 50 or more doctoral degrees annually. In addition these institutions receive a substantial amount ($40
million or more) of federal support. Note that this definition is based on the 1994 classification devised by The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The classification scheme was redone in 2000 and 2005.
See “Carnegie Classifications” at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/ for further details.
OCR for page 18
GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
18
demographics, employment experiences, and types of institutional support received. In addition
to results from the surveys, the committee heard expert testimony and examined data from
federal agencies and professional societies, individual university studies (e.g. gender equity,
salary, or “climate” studies), and academic articles. The survey is discussed in greater detail later
in this chapter and in Appendix 1-4.
There is no question that academic careers vary significantly for both men and women,
depending on the type of academic institution and the academic position, so the findings from
these surveys may or may not be relevant to other academic appointments or institutions. While
by no means exhausting the topic, the purpose of this report is to advance the state of knowledge
on specific aspects of gender in academic science and engineering, while at the same time
recognizing the study’s limitations.
There are many factors that play a significant role in women’s careers in academia that
are outside the charge, and therefore were excluded in the committee’s deliberations. These
include, for example:
• Constraints of dual careers, particularly in geographic mobility;
• Access to quality child care;
• Impact of stopping-the-clock policies;
• Preference for part-time academic positions;
• Perceptions of isolation and lack of collegiality;
• Expectations regarding professional recognition and career satisfaction;
• Attrition along the academic career pathway; and
• Disciplinary differences that either foster or impede these factors; and
• Other quality-of-life issues.
In particular, the report does not explore the impact of children and family life. While these and
similar factors are beyond the scope of this study, they are significant in impacting women’s
faculty career choices
Also, incremental changes in the percentages of women with doctoral degrees and in
post-doctoral positions do not by themselves result in commensurate changes in the numbers of
women faculty in universities, especially at senior levels. Much more needs to be known about
the careers of women scientists after and even during graduate school, as well as the many career
paths they may follow that may lead them away from academia. This study focuses primarily on
key transition points in academic careers that research intensive institutions can control and
influence. Substantial additional research is needed to create a more complete picture of
women’s careers paths (see suggestions in Chapter 6).
The study reassesses and extends, with newly collected data, results of prior examinations
of gender differences in academia to establish the contemporary veracity of those conclusions
and to document trends over time. The study moves beyond earlier analyses by focusing more
directly on the role of three sets of factors thought to produce gender differences in academic
careers: (1) institutional practices and procedures, including the hiring and tenure processes; (2)
individual characteristics, such as the role of marriage and family in the academic career paths of
men and women; and (3) the overarching, changing nature of the academic profession. Focusing
on these factors, the committee reformulated the charge into a series of guiding research
questions about academic hiring, institutional resources and climate, and tenure and promotion:
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION 19
Academic Hiring (Chapter 3)
• Is gender associated with the probability of individuals applying for S&E positions in
Research I institutions?
• Given that an individual applies for a position, does a woman have the same probability
of being interviewed as a man?
• Given that an individual is interviewed for a position, does a woman have the same
probability of being offered a position as a man?
Institutional Resources, Professional Activities, and Climate (Chapter 4)
• Do male and female faculty engage in similar professional activities?
• Do male and female faculty receive similar institutional resources?
• Are male and female faculty similarly productive in terms of research?
• Is the departmental/institutional climate the same for male and female faculty?
• Do male and female faculty have similar rates of retention and degrees of job
satisfaction?
Tenure and Promotion (Chapter 5)
• Are similar male and female faculty equally likely to receive tenure?
• Are similar male and female faculty equally likely to receive a promotion?
• Do men and women spend similar amounts of time at lower and intermediate ranks?
To answer these questions, the committee relied on multiple sources of information, but
especially on information collected through two national surveys of individual faculty and
academic departments, described in detail later in this chapter. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 present the
results of the statistical analyses of the data collected in the surveys during the course of this
study. In a number of cases, findings from the current surveys differ from some of the positions
put forth in the literature, as summarized in Chapter 2. Recommendations offered in Chapter 6
are based directly on the committee’s analysis of the survey data.
Scope
This study is necessarily limited. Academia in the United States is both broad and varied,
and the factors affecting the career tracks of female Ph.D.s in science and engineering are diverse
and complex. This report focuses on a small but vital segment of higher education, a specific
population of faculty members, and factors affecting academic careers largely controlled by
institutions. It does not cover all of higher education, all faculty members, or all factors affecting
career tracks or decisions. Put succinctly, the report examines key institutional transitions and
experiences of male and female, full-time, assistant, associate, and full professors in the natural
sciences and engineering at Research I institutions.
What Career Factors are Examined
As is readily apparent to anyone who has studied, considered, or experienced an
academic career, many vital transition points and factors affect career choices and decisions.
These encompass influences from as early as high school or middle school to decisions and
OCR for page 20
GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
20
opportunities until (and beyond) retirement. They include decisions or opportunities to pursue
academic careers, work in industry or government, or take oneself out of the job market. They
cover, of course, formal institutional actions, such as those described here, as well as unofficial
and unstated actions difficult to measure. And they include a myriad of personal characteristics,
family circumstances, social pressures, opportunities, and experiences of female faculty
members and those who might have become faculty. 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. Do they pursue faculty jobs at other universities or colleges? Become clinical,
adjunct, or research faculty members or other research personnel? Get postdocs? Take positions
in industry or government? Opt out of the workforce altogether? Some factors to consider are:
Presence of role models and mentors
Finances
Parental influence
Family circumstances
Professional networks
Job market
Geographical restrictions
In the same vein, we do not know what happens to women faculty members who are
hired and subsequently leave the university. The entire range of options available to new Ph.D.s
is available to them, in addition to many institutional factors, such as:
Salary level
Likelihood of promotion
Denial of tenure
Institutional funding
Personal affinity for teaching or research
Family circumstances
Institutional climate
Productivity
Social factors
For those who remain in regular faculty positions, the report does include important and new
information on their individual characteristics, family circumstances, professional activities, and
outcomes, as well as institutional resources and climate. But even for this group, there are many
factors affecting individual choices and institutional climate that we were unable to measure.
At the senior end of the academic career track, we know little about female full
professors and what gender differences might exist at this stage of one’s career. This report does
not include descriptions of special institutional programs or recognitions such as:
Salary adjustments
Research support
Named chairs or professorships
Leadership positions
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTION 21
Who and What are Included
In addition to focusing on select factors affecting academic careers, the study has limited
its scope to particular types of institutions, individuals, and disciplines. First, the focus of this
study is primarily current, rather than historical or predictive. It is beyond the scope of the
charge and the resources of the committee overseeing this report to estimate future trends for
female faculty.
Second, there are thousands of higher education institutions in the United States. This
study does not address any pipeline issues regarding educational preparation and training prior to
application for a tenure-track position. As stated above, the study focuses primarily on doctoral-
granting institutions, specifically the 88 Research I Institutions (also know as Research-intensive
Institutions) defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1994 and
listed in Appendix 1-2. These institutions were picked because of their prestige, the role they
play in training future generations of scholars, their contribution to scholarship, and the amount
of research they undertake.13 The data gathered about research universities will also likely serve
as a useful starting point for the examination of other types of higher education institutions.
Third, this study will focus primarily on full-time, regularly appointed, professorial
faculty. Due to the committee’s interest in what has traditionally been the typical academic
career path within RI institutions, the target population is limited to assistant, associate, and full
professors. By and large, these are the faculty who are tenure eligible, who both teach and
conduct research, who supervise most of the graduate students who will be the next generation of
scholars, and who are most likely to receive the widest range of institutional support. Instructors,
lecturers, post-docs, adjunct faculty, clinical faculty, and research faculty are not included. While
these faculty are important, they have very different career paths and warrant separate study.
Fourth, although data are provided for many natural science and engineering disciplines
in assessing historical gender differences in academia, the new data collected for this report by
the two surveys of department chairs and faculty focus on six fields: the biological sciences,
chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mathematics, and physics.14 The purpose of
13
The National Science Foundation (2002:2-3) notes: “Research universities enroll only 19 percent of the students
in higher education, but they play the largest role in S&E degree production. They produce most of the engineering
degrees and a large proportion of natural and social science degrees at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. In
1998, the nation’s 127 research universities awarded more than 42 percent of all S&E bachelor’s degrees and 52
percent of all S&E master’s degrees.” For example, of the 8,350 Ph.D.s granted in the life sciences in 2002, 2608
Ph.D.s (31 percent) were granted by just 20 Research I institutions (Hoffer et al. 2003). These institutions “are also
the most conducive organizational contexts for a prestigious research career (NRC, 2001:124).” On federal
academic S&E support, see: Richard J. Bennof, Federal Science and Engineering Obligations to Academic and
Nonprofit Institutions Reached Record Highs in FY 2002, NSF InfoBrief, June 2004, (NSF 04-324).
14
The four science fields were chosen, partly because they represent the “standard” or well-known science fields.
In addition, professional associations in the areas of chemistry, mathematics, and physics collect data on their fields.
Readers should note that “biological sciences” is a broad term, and may include agricultural or health sciences.
Likewise, mathematics data sometime include data for statistics or computer science. Finally, physics data may
include astronomy.
Civil engineering was chosen as a middle ground among the various engineering fields. According to
Gibbons (2004), during the 2002-2003 academic year, over 8000 students received civil engineering baccalaureate
degrees—the fourth largest amount—and women received 23.4 percent of those degrees. This lies between a high
for environmental engineering (42.1 percent of degrees went to women) and a low of 11.7 percent for engineering
technology. About 3600 students received masters degrees—the fifth largest amount—and women received 25.2
percent of them, between 42.2 percent for environmental engineering and 9.0 percent for petroleum. 631 doctoral
OCR for page 22
GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
22
the primary data collection on a subset of fields was to allow for an examination of the career
paths for men and women facing similar expectations and constraints. Although the findings
may identify male/female differences prevalent throughout science and engineering faculties, the
reader is cautioned about generalizing from the findings. Not only may they not apply to all
fields of science and engineering, but it may also be inappropriate to generalize from findings in
physics and chemistry, for example, to all physical sciences or from civil and electrical
engineering to all engineering fields.
Differences and Commonalities with Other National Academies’ Reports
The committee has benefited greatly from three other National Academies’ reports on
women in academic science and engineering. In 2001 CWSE published From Scarcity to
Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers”15, a statistical
analysis of the career progression of matched cohorts of men and women PhDs from 1973 to
1995, using data from the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates and Survey of Doctoral Recipients.
The 2001 report had a much broader scope than this one; it covered employment outside
academia; all science and engineering disciplines. including the social sciences; and (within
academia) all types of higher education institutions and faculty positions. It relied on longitudinal
data on the same individuals collected over time, rather than a snapshot of faculty and
departments at a single point in time. While it is not possible to draw direct comparisons between
the data in the two reports, some of the 2001 findings on women’s participation in academia
provide a useful backdrop:
• Men hold a 14 percent advantage in tenure-track positions.
• Women are underrepresented in senior faculty positions at Research I universities.
• At any professional age, men are more likely than women to hold tenure.
• Women are less likely to be full professors than are their male counterparts.
The 2006 CWSE report, To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in U.S.
Science and Engineering16 identifies the strategies that higher education institutions have
employed to achieve gender inclusiveness, based on case studies of four successful universities.
Concluding that women face “challenges that may lead to their attrition at key junctures in
higher education” and that “female faculty appear to advance along the academic career pathway
more slowly than males,” the 2005 report identifies successful strategies for recruitment and
retention of women undergraduate and graduate students, recruitment and advancement of
women faculty, and advancement of women faculty into administrative positions.
degrees were awarded—the third largest amount—and women received 18.4 percent, between 33.3 percent for
engineering management and 0 percent in mining and in architectural engineering. Finally, for faculty, civil
engineering has the third highest number of faculty members: 3320, and 10.9 percent of tenured/tenure-track
teaching faculty are women. Fields with the lowest percentage of women were aerospace, petroleum, and mining
(all at 5.0 percent); while the highest were biomedical (16.6 percent), industrial/manufacturing (15.4 percent), and
environmental (14.7).
15
National Research Council, From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists
and Engineers.2001. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16
. National Research Council, To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in U.S. Science and
Engineering, 2005. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION 23
A third report, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic
Science and Engineering, was released in 2006.17 Appointed under the aegis of the Committee
on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), this 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 to guide faculty, deans, department chairs, other university leaders, funding
organizations, and government agencies in the best ways to maximize the potential of women
science and engineering researchers.”
Beyond Bias and Barriers examines the results of recent research on gender differences
in learning and performance—particularly cognitive, biological, and socio-cultural differences
that address the educational pathways to becoming faculty. It lists 11 common beliefs about
women in science and engineering and presents evidence refuting them. Based primarily on
existing data and the committee’s expertise, it identifies barriers that women face in academia
and calls for action by university leaders, professional societies, federal agencies and Congress to
“transform institutional structures and procedures to eliminate gender bias.”
The COSEPUP report is significantly broader in scope than this report. It covers faculty
from all fields of sciences and engineering (including the social sciences) and encompasses the
full range of academic institutions. It addresses the overall mobility of women in academe, as
well as the specific concerns of minority women. And based on an assessment of the underlying
causes of gender discrepancies in academia, it provides broad policy recommendations for
changes at higher education institutions.
In contrast, and following COSEPUP’s recommendation for new and “accurate
information,” this report examines the experiences of a specific set of faculty and departments in
six disciplines in a particular type of institution (R1), based primarily on data collected in 2004
and 2005. Rather than an overview of career paths, our examination is limited to a snapshot of
key transition points in academic careers that are under the control of the institutions (hiring,
institutional climate and resources, tenure, and promotion). It highlights many striking
differences among the disciplines that make generalizations across science and engineering
difficult. The findings and recommendations here are a direct result of the data from our two
surveys, which were not available to the COSEPUP committee.
Given the differences in scope and approach, it is not surprising that some of the findings
of the two reports differ. While both committees found that women are underrepresented in
academic science and engineering, the survey findings presented here 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. The survey data show that female and male
faculty have had comparable access to many types of institutional resources (e.g., start-up
packages, laboratory space and research assistants), in contrast to the COSEPUP committee’s
general findings that “women who are interested in science and engineering careers are lost at
17
National Academies, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering. 2007. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OCR for page 24
GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
24
every educational transition”18 and that that “evaluation criteria contain arbitrary and subjective
components that disadvantage women.”19
Like the COSEPUP committee, however, this committee found evidence of the overall
loss of women’s participation in academia, even though many of the actual transition points
under the control of institutions (like interviewing, hiring, and promoting) do not show evidence
of a loss. The 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. The
former is especially apparent in the fields of chemistry and biology, where the number of women
applicants for faculty positions in research-intensive universities is much lower than the number
of women doctorates in the pool. 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. Similarly, the reports agree that there are gender differences in time in rank, but
we do not have any causal evidence as to why this is so.
The findings in both reports underscore the fact that our work is not done. Further
research is needed, along with continued efforts to increase the number of women faculty in
many disciplines and at key points in academic careers.
Sources of Information
The primary source of information for this report consists of two new surveys designed
and conducted especially for this project by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) during 2004
and 2005. The surveys were undertaken to fill in some of the current gaps in knowledge
regarding faculty outcomes and institutional practices, which could not otherwise be addressed
by existing data sets. One survey focused on departments; the other examined faculty.
The departmental survey was a census of biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical
engineering, mathematics, and physics departments at Research I institutions (N=492). It
gathered information on departmental characteristics, hiring practices and outcomes, and tenure
and promotion processes and yielded an overall response rate of 85 percent. Data on attrition was
not collected.
In contrast, the faculty survey was a stratified, random sample of approximately 1,800
faculty from the same departments. The faculty survey included information on demographic
characteristics, employment experiences, and types of institutional support received and yielded
a response rate of 73 percent. Comparable, cross-institution information on hiring and resource
allocation is notoriously difficult to find—although some universities collect such information—
and thus the survey data collected for this project is quite instructive. Because of funding
limitations and concern that longer surveys would have lower response rates, the surveys did not
include questions about degree of job satisfaction, nor did they collect information on attrition of
faculty over the preceding several years. Hopefully, others will collect some of the information
that could not be gathered in the course of this study. Details on the implementation of the
surveys, including the actual questionnaires and response rates, can be found in Appendix 1-4.
To gain a better understanding of the overall representation of women in academic
science and engineering and how that has changed over time, the committee examined data from
two large, national studies: the Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR), conducted biennially by
18
Ibid, page 2.
19
Ibid, page 3.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 25
INTRODUCTION 25
the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty
(NSOPF), conducted every five years by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of
the Department of Education. Data from professional and disciplinary societies were also
examined.
To determine the state of current knowledge on women’s academic career paths, the
committee reviewed studies conducted by individual universities as well as publications by
individual researchers. It also heard expert testimony from several interested stakeholders at its
first committee meeting (see Appendix 1-3).
Drawing from these multiple sources, Chapter 2 provides a brief overview of the
representation of women in academic science and engineering at the time the surveys were
conducted in 2004 and 2005. A more extensive analysis of changes from 1995-2003, using data
primarily from the SDR, can be found in Appendix 2-1, along with an overview of existing
research. The committee used many of the themes and issues identified in this research to
develop the survey questionnaires, and we hope that the findings presented here—and the many
unanswered questions—will form the basis for future research.
Outline of the Report
The remainder of the report is divided into four topic areas. Chapter 2 presents data on
the representation of female faculty in science and engineering (S&E) as of 2004-2005. The next
three chapters present the survey results and analysis, with findings at the end of each chapter.
Specifically, Chapter 3 examines the applicant pool for academic positions in research
universities and the hiring process. Chapter 4 considers the day-to-day life of academics,
examining professional activities, climate, institutional resources (including start-up packages,
laboratory space, and access to equipment), and outcomes such as publications, grant funding
and salary. Chapter 5 explores whether there are disparities in the tenure and promotion process
in research universities and, if so, whether those disparities are associated with gender. Chapter 6
provides a summary of key findings from the surveys and the committee’s recommendations,
including questions for future research.
OCR for page 26
