|
Items in cart [0] |
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 27
PREPUBLICATION COPY
2
STATUS OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING IN 2004 AND 2005
Over the past 30 years, legislators, government agencies, professional societies,
university administrators, and faculty have increasingly endeavored to raise the number
of women pursuing higher education and careers in science and engineering (S&E). To a
degree, these efforts have succeeded. Women have made substantial strides both in
participating in postsecondary S&E education and in attaining careers in the academic
workforce.1 This chapter provides an overview of the representation of women in
academic science and engineering at approximately the time of the faculty and
departmental surveys (2004 and 2005). In some cases, results from more recent studies
have also been included. These data and analyses provide a context for understanding and
assessing the results of the surveys, as well as ideas for further research. The findings and
recommendations in this report, however, are based solely on the survey data.
The information in this chapter has been compiled from multiple sources. The
data are drawn primarily from the Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR), conducted every
two years by the National Science Foundation, and the National Survey of Postsecondary
Faculty (NSOPF), which has been conducted every five years since 1988 by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the Department of Education.2 The SDR
samples all doctoral scientists and engineers, and the present study focuses on the subset
who are faculty. The NSOPF samples only faculty, and this report concentrates on the
subset that are in the natural sciences and engineering. Both the NSF and NCES release
special reports, which were also consulted.3
Data from professional societies were also examined, including the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP), which focuses on faculty, and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which surveys its
members.4 In addition, several discipline-oriented societies provided data from member
surveys, for example, the Computing Research Association (CRA), the American
Mathematical Society (AMS), the American Institute of Physics (AIP), the American
Chemical Society (ACS), and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).5
1
Marschke et al. 2007, write however that progress for female faculty has been “glacial” and
“excruciatingly slow.”
2
Additional information on the surveys can be found at “SRS Survey of Doctoral Recipients” at
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showsrvy.cfm?srvy_CatID=3&srvy_Seri=5 accessed on June 13, 2006; and
“National Study of Postsecondary Faculty—Overview” at http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/ accessed
on June 13, 2006.
3
See for example NSF (2004b).
4
For further details on the AAAS surveys, see Chander and Mervis (2001) and Holden (2004).
5
For further details see Vardi et al., (2003), Kirkman et al. (2006), Ivie et al. (2003), Long (2000; 2002),
Byrum (2001), and Marasco (2003).
27
OCR for page 28
28 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
Finally, the committee consulted studies conducted by individual universities
(e.g., on gender equity, salary, or climate) and publications by individual researchers. An
analysis of historical trends in the representation of women in academic science and
engineering based on the SDR and NSOPF and a more extensive review of the research
literature can be found in Appendix 2-1.
DEGREES EARNED
Evidence of women’s representation in science and engineering is often measured
first in the attainment of undergraduate and graduate degrees. 6 In 2004, 50.4 percent of
all S&E bachelor’s degrees went to women.7 Women received the majority of bachelor’s
degrees in the agricultural sciences, biological sciences, oceanography, and chemistry,
and were awarded over 40 percent of the bachelor’s degrees granted in the earth sciences,
mathematics and statistics, and atmospheric and other physical sciences, excluding
physics.8
Of all S&E master’s degrees awarded in 2004, 43.6 percent went to women. They
received the majority of master’s degrees in the agricultural and biological sciences and
other physical sciences, excluding physics and astronomy. They were awarded over 40
percent of the master’s degrees in the earth sciences and oceanography, mathematics and
statistics, and chemistry.9
In 2005, 37.7 percent of all S&E doctorate degrees went to women. Women were
awarded almost 50 percent of Ph.D.s granted in the biological sciences (National Science
Foundation, 2006).
FACULTY REPRESENTATION
Despite these encouraging numbers, the number and percentage of women faculty
had yet to match these gains. While noticeably increasing throughout S&E disciplines,
women continued to be underrepresented among academic faculty relative to the number
of women receiving S&E degrees (Nelson, 2005). As Table 2-1 shows, in 2003, women
comprised between 6 and 29 percent of senior faculty (full and associate professors) in
S&E. The largest percent of full and associate professors was found in the life sciences,
while the lowest was in engineering.
6
The percentage of women participating in science and engineering education, however, is lower than the
corresponding percentage of women in the U.S. population of 18- to 30-year-olds. See Kristen Olson,
Despite Increases, Women and Minorities Still Underrepresented in Undergraduate and Graduate S&E
Education. NSF Data Brief, January 15, 1999 (NSF 99-320).
7
Note here S&E is defined as: engineering, natural sciences, and the social and behavioral sciences.
8
Data tabulated by staff, derived from National Science Foundation WebCASPAR database.
9
Data tabulated by staff, derived from National Science Foundation WebCASPAR database.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 29
STATUS OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING 29
Table 2-1 Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders Employed in Academia as Full-
time Senior Faculty by Sex and Degree Field, 2003
Field Total Sex Female
(thousands) Male Female (%)
(thousands)
Full-time senior faculty
Natural Sciences 77.5 61.0 16.5 21.3
Physical sciences 17.0 15.3 1.7 10.0
Mathematics 10.2 9.1 1.2 11.8
Computer sciences 2.9 2.4 0.5 17.2
Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences 4.3 3.5 0.8 18.6
Life sciences 43.1 30.7 12.4 28.8
Engineering 17.2 16.1 1.1 6.4
SOURCE: Adapted from NSB, 2006: Appendix Table 5-28.
Women were more likely to be assistant professors, and as shown in Table 2-2,
comprised between 18 and 45 percent of assistant professors in S&E.10 Again, the largest
percentage of female faculty was in the life sciences and the lowest was in engineering.
TABLE 2-2 Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders Employed in Academia as Full-
time Junior Faculty by Sex and Degree Field, 2003
Field Total Sex Female
(thousands) Male Female %
(thousands)
Full-time junior faculty
Natural Sciences 31.6 19.6 11.8 37.3
Physical sciences 5.5 4.3 1.3 23.6
Mathematics 2.8 2.0 0.9 32.1
Computer sciences 1.3 1.0 0.3 23.1
Earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences 1.8 1.3 0.5 27.8
Life sciences 20.1 11.1 9.0 44.8
Engineering 5.6 4.6 1.0 17.9
SOURCE: Adapted from NSB, 2006: Appendix Table 5-28.
These aggregate proportions masked two noteworthy phenomena. First, some
departments had had greater success in recruiting, retaining, and advancing female
faculty than others. Examinations of specific department rosters continued to turn up
examples of departments with no female faculty (e.g. Ivie et al., 2003; Nelson, 2005).11
10
Other studies come to similar conclusions. For example, women comprised only 14 percent of all faculty
in astronomy in 2003 (Ivie, 2004) and 13 percent of all faculty in physics in 2006 (Dresselhaus, 2007). In
mathematics in 2005, only 11 percent of full-time, tenure-track or tenured faculty in doctoral departments
were women, while 24 percent of non-tenure-track, full-time faculty were women (Kirkman, et al., 2006).
In engineering, only 11.3 percent of tenured or tenure-track faculty members were women in 2006
(Gibbons, 2007). It should be noted, though, that over time, these percentages are slowly rising.
11
In 2006, all of the top 50 chemistry departments had at least one woman on faculty (Marasco, 2006).
Continuing the examination of chemistry, for 30 Research I institutions that hired at least five faculty
during 1988 and 1997, the percent of women among hires ranged from 50 percent in one case to 0 percent
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 30
30 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
Second, some types of higher education institutions had done better at recruiting,
retaining, and advancing female faculty than others. Female science faculty were more
likely to be employed by community colleges or institutions that did not offer a doctoral
degree, rather than at the large research universities (Nettles et al., 2000; Schneider,
2000). For example, in mathematics in 2005, the percentage of female full-time, tenured
or tenure-track faculty at doctoral-granting institutions was 11 percent; at masters-
granting institutions it was 24 percent; and at bachelors-granting institutions it was 25
percent (Kirkman, et al., 2006).
According to Forrest, Fahimi, and Bradburn (2005:3), “full-time faculty and
instructional staff at public doctoral and private not-for-profit doctoral institutions were
less likely to be female (32–33 percent) than those at public master’s, private not-for-
profit baccalaureate, and other institutions (41 percent each), private not-for-profit
master’s institutions (43 percent), and public associate’s institutions.” This was a long-
standing trend, as noted in NRC’s (2001:155) analysis of NSF data for 1979, 1989, and
1995, which found that women were “least represented among the faculty at Research I
and Research II institutions.” Summarizing the landscape in an article entitled “Where
the Elite Teach, It’s Still a Man’s World,” Robin Wilson (2004) wrote, “at the country’s
big research universities, the vast majority of professors are men.”
Related to this is the fact that female faculty tended to be clustered in positions
that were part-time, untenured, or at lower ranks. The number of positions off the tenure-
track—both part- and full-time—had grown dramatically over the past few decades
(Anderson, 2002; Bradley, 2004). Comparing full-time to part-time positions, women
were less likely to be found in full-time positions. In mathematics, for example, during
the fall term of 2005, 37 percent of the part-time faculty at doctoral-granting institutions
were women, while only 11 percent of the full-time, tenured and tenure-track faculty
were women, and only 24 percent of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty were women
(Kirkman et al., 2006).12
Women comprised a particularly small percentage of tenured scientists and
engineers in universities and 4-year colleges in 2001 (NSF, 2006). In engineering, for
example, the proportion of tenured faculty who were women was 6.2 percent (out of a
total of 15,480 faculty). In mathematics and statistics, the proportion was 11.9 percent (of
10,610 faculty), and in the physical sciences, it was 11.1 percent (of 18,930 faculty). In
computer and information sciences, the proportion was 17.7 percent (of 2,670 faculty).
The biological and agricultural sciences had the highest proportion of tenured faculty
who were women, with 21.7 percent (of 30,940 faculty).13
Finally, the NSF noted in its biennial publication, Women, Minorities, and
Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2000 (2000:59), that “within 4-
year colleges and universities, female scientists and engineers hold fewer high-ranked
positions than do their male counterparts. Women were less likely than men to be full
in 8 cases. Some departments hired a greater proportion of women than might be expected in comparison
to the proportion of women in the doctoral pool, though in most cases, the proportion of women hired was
lower (NAS, NAE and IOM, 2007).
12
Doctorate-granting institutions are defined as Groups I, II, III, IV, and V. See Kirkman et al (2006) for
complete definitions.
13
Note these are small gains over 2001 data (compare with NSF, 2003b). The figures here do not agree
with those in Table 1-1 due to differences in year of reference, sampling and non-sampling errors, and
definitional differences.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 31
STATUS OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING 31
professors and more likely than men to be assistant professors.” These findings were
confirmed in the 2007 follow-up to that report (NSF 2007). In a survey of the top 50
departments in several fields, Nelson (2005) found the percentages of women dropped off
through the professorial ranks from assistant to associate to full professor in all fields
except one.14 For example, in chemistry, women comprised 21.5 percent of assistant
professors, 20.5 percent of associate professors, and 7.6 percent of full professors. In
physics, 11.2 percent of assistant professors, 9.8 percent of associate professors, and 4.6
percent of full professors were women. In civil engineering, 22.3 percent of assistant
professors, 11.5 percent of associate professors, and 3.5 percent of full professors were
women (Nelson, 2005).15
Data for faculty at a wider range of institutions were consistent with Nelson’s
findings (NAS, NAE and IOM, 2007). For tenured or tenure-track engineering faculty in
general in 2005, women comprised 6.3 percent of full professors, 13.2 percent of
associate professors, and 19.5 percent of assistant professors (Gibbons, 2007).16 In
physics, women comprised 6 percent of full professors, 14 percent of associate
professors, and 17 percent of assistant professors (Dresselhaus, 2007).
The explanation that female faculty on average tended to be younger and so were
more likely to be at lower ranks did not completely explain their lower ranks according to
NRC (2001:172), who found “that at any given career age men are more likely to be in a
higher rank [emphasis in original].” For example, in 1995, in the 10th year since receiving
a Ph.D., 8 percent of women and 12 percent of men were full professors; in the 15th year,
33 percent of women and 45 percent of men were full professors; and in the 20th year, 64
percent of women and 73 percent of men were full professors (pp. 172-3). Something
other than career age appeared to be causing part of the observed gender differences in
rank attainment.
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND CLIMATE
In addition to the underrepresentation of female faculty, concerns persisted
regarding gender differences in the treatment of faculty. Several studies suggested
women were evaluated more harshly and were less likely to be hired into academic
positions (Lewin and Duchan, 1971; Wenneras and Wold, 1997; Steinpreis, et al., 1999;
Trix and Psenka, 2003). The literature also suggested that once hired, women were
treated differently than men. Women were less likely to receive tenure or a promotion—
the major career milestones for academics--or they spent more time in a lower rank
before tenure or a promotion, with negative consequences for their salaries (Long et al.,
1993; NRC, 2001; NSF, 2004). Ginther (2001) found women scientists, in general, were
14
The exception was computer science: 10.8 percent of assistant professors, 14.4 percent of associate
professors, and 8.3 percent of full professors were women.
15
Data for chemistry are from 2003; data for physics and civil engineering are from 2002. Newer data are
available in chemistry. See Marasco (2006) for percent of female faculty at the nation’s top 50 chemistry
departments from 2000 to 2006. See NAS, NAE and IOM (2007) for numbers of male and female faculty
in chemistry from 1966-1999
16
This is a general trend. According to data collected by the AAUP, about 40 percent of men were full
professors, compared to about 20 percent of women. In addition, a greater proportion of women were
instructors, lecturers, or had no rank (Curtis, 2004).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 32
32 GENDER DIFFERENCES AT CRITICAL TRANSITIONS IN CAREERS
twelve percent less likely than men to be promoted. Long, Allison and McGinnis (1993)
reached a similar conclusion for women in biochemistry.17
Some writers suggested that women faculty received fewer resources than male
faculty, with academic salaries being an obvious, much studied, example. Data from the
Department of Education noted that during the 2003 to 2004 academic year, male
“faculty with 9/10-month contracts earned an average salary of $68,000, and female
faculty with contracts of the same length earned an average salary of $55,000” (Knapp et
al., 2005). According to an American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
survey, women’s salaries for the academic year 2003 to 2004 continued to remain lower
than men’s salaries in every category (Curtis, 2005).18 Curtis explained that women were
“still disproportionately found in lower-ranked faculty positions, including non-tenure-
track lecturer or unranked positions, which tend to pay lower salaries,” and women were
“more likely than men to be employed at associate degree and baccalaureate colleges,
where salaries are lower" (p. 29). However, studies of salaries of science and engineering
faculty, which controlled for such factors as career age, discipline, institution type, rank,
and productivity still found disparities in salary (NRC, 2001; Ginther, 2001; 2004).
There was some evidence that the gender gap in academic salaries was shrinking over
time (see for instance, Holden, 2004).
Other resources may not have been equitably held. The 1999 MIT study (MIT,
1999), for instance, noted women faculty had less laboratory space than men. University
departments doled out a variety of resources, including access to research assistants,
travel money, lab space and equipment, summer research money, etc.
A third area where inequities were seen to exist was in academic workloads (Park,
1996; Nettles et al., 2000; Fogg, 2003a; Jacobs, 2004). As Park (1996) explained,
“though all university faculty are expected to teach and to serve, as well as to carry out
research, male and female faculty exhibit significantly different patterns of research,
teaching, and service. Men, as a group, devote a higher portion of their time to research
activities, whereas women, as a group, devote a much higher percentage of their time to
teaching and service activities than do men (p. 54).” An examination of Fall 2003 full-
time S&E faculty at Research I institutions in the Department of Education’s 2004
National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) found that men spent, on average,
35.8 percent of their time on research activities, while women spent 30.3 percent of their
time on research activities. Conversely, women spent 46.9 percent of their time on
instruction, compared with men, who spent 41.3 percent of their time on instruction.19
Men and women spent almost the same percentage of time on administrative and other
17
Recent data have cast doubt on this position, suggesting significant differences might not occur (Ginther
and Kahn, 2006).
18
Perna’s (2002) analysis suggested women faculty were less likely to receive supplemental earnings, such
as from institutional sources or private consulting.
19
Data were created using the Department of Education’s Data Analysis System (DAS) available online at:
http://www.nces.ed.gov/dasol/. Gender was used as the row variable. The column variables were mean
percent time spent on research activities, mean percent time spent on instruction, and mean percent time
spent on other unspecified activities. Filters were: only Research I institutions, full-time employed, with
faculty status, with instructional duties for credit, and with principal fields of teaching as agriculture and
home economics, engineering, first-professional health sciences, nursing, other health sciences, biological
sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, and computer sciences.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 33
STATUS OF WOMEN IN ACADEMIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING 33
activities.20 Disparities in research time may have had critical consequences, as
productivity is the most important component in deciding tenure and promotion cases21
and in determining salary.
A final area where disparities may have occurred between female and male
faculty was in job satisfaction and retention. In general, women were less satisfied in the
academic workplace than males (Trower and Chait, 2002), which may have led to
unhappiness with one’s profession and consequently lower productivity and decreased
retention rates. Lawler (1999) noted an additional concern: “unhappiness gets
transmitted to younger women starting out and may help scare a new generation away
from academia,” thus potentially reducing the pool of future academics.
Several studies found women had higher attrition rates than men both prior to and
after tenure was granted (Trower and Chait, 2002; Carter et al., 2003; August and
Waltman, 2004; August, 2006).22 Yamagata (2002), for example, found the attrition rate
for female faculty at medical schools was higher than the rate for male faculty from 1980
to1999 (although the attrition rate for women was decreasing faster than the attrition rate
for men and more women were becoming full-time faculty members, resulting in a
shrinking gender gap). Johnsrud and Rosser (2002) catalogued a variety of reasons that
may explain a faculty member’s decision to leave a particular position. These included a
variety of individual characteristics, such as personal motivation and satisfaction, as well
as institutional support.23
Against this backdrop of increasing women’s participation in science and
engineering but persistent gender gaps, the committee fielded its surveys of faculty and
academic departments in 2004 and 2005. Many of the issues and concerns raised by
previous data collection and research formed the basis for the survey questions. Again, an
analysis of historical trends from 1995-2003 and a more extensive review of the literature
can be found in Appendix 2-1.
20
Administrative and other activities are defined as those that occur at the respondent’s institution such as
administration, professional growth, service, and other activities not related to teaching or research.
21
As Nettles et al., 2000:8 noted: “Some researchers have argued that most faculty reward systems are
based on research performance (Hansen 1988), and existing research supports this assertion (e.g.,
Fairweather 1995, 1996; Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 1992; Ferber and Green 1982; Lewis and Becker 1979;
Tuckman and Hageman 1976). See also Fairweather (2002).
22
Although at least one study of 210 departments of computer science conducted in 2002 for the period
1995-2000 found that female faculty had lower turnover than men (Cohoon, et al., 2003).
23
See also Amey (1996).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 34
