|
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 282
APPENDIXES
282
Appendix 3-1
Review of the Literature and Research on Factors Associated with a Higher Proportion of
Female Applicants
This appendix examines prior research on the factors hypothesized to be associated with
the proportion of female applicants for faculty positions. The focus is on departmental or
institutional characteristics since this study’s survey data contain little information about the
individual applicants, apart from their gender. A review of previous research included topics on
departmental climate, work-life balance and family-friendly policies, geographic location,
departmental prestige, and public versus private institutions. In addition, we examined the
relationship between availability of women in the PhD pool and the percentage of female
applicants.
Status of Women Faculty Overall in 2003
A review of previous research at the time the surveys were conducted showed that the
proportion of female science and engineering (S&E) faculty at Research I (RI) institutions was
rising but had yet to reach parity in reference to the proportion of S&E doctorates awarded to
women. From 1979 to 2003, the percentage of female S&E assistant professors at these
institutions grew from 11 percent to over 35 percent; the percentage of female S&E associate
professors rose from 5 percent to 24 percent; and the percentage of female S&E full professors
rose from about 2 percent to about 11 percent.19 These aggregate trends masked substantial
variability across departments. Some disciplines, such as biology, had attracted many more
female faculty than others, and within a specific discipline, some departments had attracted many
female faculty while others still have no women among their faculty members (e.g., Kuck et al,
2004; Nelson, 2005; Ivie and Ray, 2005). Additionally, there had been some concern that while
earlier efforts beginning around 2000 had increased female representation, those efforts may had
stalled out.
Both the overall rate of growth in the percentage of S&E faculty who were women and
the variation among departments, disciplines, and institutions may be partly attributable to the
hiring process.
Availability of Women in the Ph.D. Pool
The potential applicant pool consists of those individuals who could apply for one or
more positions. In practice, universities know only the number of applicants who apply for any
particular position for which they are recruiting, and the actual potential candidate pool remains
19
Data for 1979 are from NRC 2001) and were calculated by taking total number of male and female faculty at
Research I institutions and subtracting male and female faculty at Research I institutions who were in social and
behavior sciences. Data for 2003 are also from the SDR as calculated by staff, using the same definition of S&E.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 283
APPENDIXES 283
unknown. Typically, the number of women receiving Ph.D.s in a field is used as a proxy for the
eligible pool of women.20
As noted in Chapter 2 and Appendix 2-1, the number of women receiving Ph.D.s in S&E
had grown significantly over the years—both numerically and as a proportion of all those
receiving doctorates in S&E. On average, over the period from 1999 to 2003, the five year
period preceding the survey’s focus, Research I institutions awarded women 45 percent of the
Ph.D.s in biology, 32 percent in chemistry, 18 percent in civil engineering, 12 percent in
electrical engineering, 25 percent in mathematics, and 14 percent in physics. In 2003, 4,005
women received Ph.D.s from all doctoral-granting institutions for the six fields studied (See
Appendices 3-4 and 3-5):
• 2,598 Ph.D.s (45.7 percent) in biology;
• 647 Ph.D.s (31.8 percent) in chemistry;
• 125 Ph.D.s (18.7 percent) in civil engineering;
• 179 Ph.D.s (12.3 percent) in electrical engineering
• 263 Ph.D.s (26.5 percent) in mathematics and statistics; and
• 193 Ph.D.s (18.0 percent) in physics.
A majority of doctoral degrees are awarded by the 89 Research I institutions (See Appendix 3-6).
On average, one might expect disciplines with higher proportions of female doctorates
would also see higher proportions of female applicants. Thus, a reasonable expectation is
women will make up a larger proportion of applicants to positions in biology and chemistry,
followed by mathematics, civil engineering, physics, and electrical engineering. This seems to
be the case generally for tenure-track jobs in our study (with the exception that the rank order
positions of chemistry and mathematics are reversed, see Table 3-3 later in this chapter), but it
does not hold at all for tenured jobs.
A commonly heard gender-based explanation offered to account for differences between
the proportion of women in the Ph.D. pool and the proportion among applicants for Research I
positions is that many women S&E doctorates may not be interested in academic positions at
Research I institutions. It is the case, as noted in Chapter 2, that many women Ph.D.s were
employed outside academia, and within academia, many women were employed at institutions
20
This measure is deficient in two ways. First, the potential applicant pool includes postdocs, individuals with
Ph.D.s from foreign institutions, individuals from outside academia, and individuals with current academic positions
who are interested in switching to a new position (Ehrenberg, 1992). For example, in a study of physics hires in
2000, Kirby et al. (2001) found that 34 percent of new hires in doctorate-granting institutions had earned Ph.D.s
outside of the United States. Likewise, in computer science (Zweben, 2005:10), for 2003-04: “Thus, more than 75%
of the faculty hires made this past year by Ph.D.-granting CS/CE [computer science/computer engineering]
departments appear to have been new Ph.D.s, with the rest consisting of a combination of faculty who changed
academic positions, persons joining academia from government and industry, new Ph.D.s from outside of North
America and from disciplines outside of CS/CE, and non-PhD. holders (e.g., taking a teaching faculty
appointment).” Second, it fails to account for the preferences of doctorates.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 284
APPENDIXES
284
other than Research I institutions. This was not unexpected since the 89 Research I institutions
make up only a small part of higher education institutions.
Fox and Stephan (2001) examined the preferences of 3,800 doctoral students in
chemistry, computer science, electrical engineering, microbiology, and physics. Overall, 36
percent of students had a preference for academic research, compared with 19 percent, who
indicated a preference for academic teaching. In every case, the proportion of women preferring
academic teaching was greater than that of men. Men strongly preferred academic research in
chemistry, microbiology, and computer science, more than women did. (Fox and Stephan, 2001).
Sears (2003) conducted a survey of 1,105 graduate students from 24 math and science
programs at the University of California, Davis, with a focus on comparing students’ initial
career goals when they began graduate school with their current career goals. A crucial finding
was “more men than women began graduate school with plans to work in research universities
(84% of men, 71% of women), and during graduate school, more women than men abandoned
this goal (p. 172).” Additionally, men, more than women respondents, were attracted to research
universities. Bleak et al. (2000), in a survey of recently hired faculty, found men were more
likely to apply to research universities than women. Data collected by the American Chemical
Society also suggested women were choosing four-year institutions over research universities
(Brennan, 1996).
Why might women be less interested in positions in research universities? In general,
women graduates may perceive the climate to be less welcoming, perhaps based on their
perceptions of how they were treated in graduate school and their perceptions of how female
faculty were treated. There was evidence that female graduate students may perceive the social
or cultural context of doctoral education in S&E differently than male graduate students do. In a
survey of 3,300 students in chemistry, computer science, electrical engineering, and physics,
conducted during 1993 to 1994, Fox (2001a) found:
• “Women are less likely than men to report that they are taken seriously by faculty and
that they are respected by faculty (p. 658).”
• “In research groups, compared to men, women report that they are less comfortable
speaking in group meetings (p. 659).”
• “Women report collaborating with fewer men graduate students and men faculty
members in research and publications during the three preceding years (p. 659).
• “Men are more apt to have received help [from advisers] in these areas [learning to
design research, write grant proposals, coauthor publications, and organize people] across
types of departments (pp. 659-60).”
• “Women are also more likely than men to report that they view their relationship with
their adviser as one of ‘student-and-faculty’ compared with ‘mentor-mentee’ or
‘colleagues,’ which may suggest greater formality and social distance for women students
(p. 670).”
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 285
APPENDIXES 285
• In terms of outcomes, men “publish more papers and are more likely to report that they
will receive their degrees (p. 660).”
Fox (2001a:660) concluded “if women are constrained within the social networks of science—in
departments or in the larger communities of science—this restricts their possibilities not simply
to participate in a social circle but, more fundamentally, to do research, to publish, to be cited—
to show the marks of status and performance in science (Fox 1991).” The level of socialization
may affect the ability of individuals to find a position. In addition, the degree of integration into
a department’s life as well as closeness with a faculty member may impact whether one learns
important details about available academic positions or feels encouraged to apply.
Departmental Climate
One of the reasons women might not apply to RI institutions is there is a perception that
these schools have a reputation for not being female-friendly. Female students may experience a
chilly climate in graduate school or may perceive that some women faculty find obstacles when
pursuing their careers and, as a consequence, may opt to embark on a career elsewhere (Brennan,
1996). The Committee considered a number of variables potentially reflecting the department
climate for women.
Representation of women in departments.
The Committee hypothesized having a larger proportion of women in a department might
be taken by female potential applicants as a signal of a “woman-friendly” department. Thus, the
percentage of women applicants would be expected to be positively correlated with the
percentage of women already on the faculty. However, prior research indicated this relationship
may not have been linear. In their study of 93 academic positions, Yoder et al. (1989) found
“departments with more than half women did not appear to be very willing to hire additional
women, while departments with moderate numbers of women were. Ironically, departments
with few or no women were almost as unlikely as departments numerically dominated by women
to hire a woman (p. 272).” Yoder et al. explained this outcome by noting, in departments with
few female faculty, women had little power to influence group decision-making, a version of the
critical mass hypothesis. In departments with some women—between 16 and 35 percent,
women could form alliances and coalitions to influence the group. When women achieved
balance in a department, job hires became less about equity, and men and women were hired at
equal rates.
Representation of women on the search committee.
Female applicants may also take the presence of women on the search committee as a
sign of a more female-friendly environment. At meetings of professional societies and as a focal
point of hiring efforts, the search committees may be very visible, and having a female search
committee chair may lead to greater efforts to recruit women applicants.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 286
APPENDIXES
286
Balancing work-life and family-friendly policies.
It may be more difficult to balance family and career at a Research I institution (Sears,
2003), which may discourage women from applying for RI positions. Marital status and the
presence of children are often mentioned as critical to assessing gender differences.
Institutions with spousal support policies and child-care and family leave policies might
be more attractive to women doctoral recipients. For example, readily available childcare may
make a greater positive difference in the lives of female faculty than male faculty. Leave
policies are another institutional policy that may affect female and male faculty differently. Two
types of leave include maternity leave, which is a standard benefit at universities, and longer,
parental leave (Yoest, 2004). Some universities also have workload relief policies (typically a
reduction in teaching and service responsibilities) for new parents. Spousal policies can take on
a number of different forms. Wolf-Wendel et al. (2003:163) suggested six broad approaches to
“help spouses and partners of academics find suitable employment.” These were: relocation
assistance, hiring a spouse or partner into an administrative position, hiring a spouse or partner
into a non-tenure-track position, creating a shared position, creating a joint position with a
nearby institution, or creating a tenure-track position for the spouse or partner. Again, spousal
policies were most relevant to hiring issues. The availability of these policies may affect the
probability that women will apply for particular positions.
Public versus Private Universities
Public universities are often thought to do more to foster diversity than private
institutions. This is because these institutions have more state oversight and may be more
transparent. Insofar as this is widely believed, women may be more likely to apply for positions
at public than at private research universities.
Geographic Mobility
Marital and family status present competing demands for time on the part of a faculty
member and may bring additional actors or considerations into decision making. Female
applicants for academic positions may be more constrained in where they can apply. Taking into
consideration children and their education and a spouse’s employment preferences and
opportunities all mean women may be more likely to take other interests into account, aside from
their own preferences.
A special subset of the family-work problem concerns dual-career couples, also known as
the two-body problem (Wolf-Wendel et al, 2003). “Nearly 38% of women chemists are married
to a chemist or other scientist, according to the 1995 ACS survey…Just shy of 21% of male
chemists are married to a scientist (Slade, 1999:61).” “According to figures from the American
Institute of Physics, 44% of married women in physics are married to other physicists—and
another 25% to some of scientist. A remarkable 80% of female mathematicians are married to
other scientists or engineers, along with a third of female chemists (Gibbons, 1992c).” It may be
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 287
APPENDIXES 287
difficult to find two academic openings at the same department. Additionally, trying to find two
jobs at a Research I is often perceived as more difficult than at other types of institutions.
The question here is: are women as mobile as men or are there factors constraining where
a woman can work? If so, then men may be able to apply to more jobs than women, who may be
clustered in applicant pools for a smaller number of jobs. Research supports this view. The
general geographic mobility argument is that changing jobs for many academics is a positive
(upward mobility), and the academic labor market is national so academics should be flexible to
take advantage when opportunity knocks. Women are less able to do this, largely because of
marriage. The careers of married women are likely to take a backseat to the careers of their
husbands (Marwell et al, 1979; Rosenfeld and Jones, 1987). Rosenfeld and Jones argue that
single women might also be geographically constrained. They may prefer large cities, which
offer more possibilities for various types of social networks.
As noted in the Appendix 2-1, Kulis and Sicotte (2002:2) suggested careers of women are
more likely to be geographically constrained. Their analysis indicated women faculty are more
likely than male faculty to reside in doctoral production centers, areas with large clusters of
colleges, and large cities. They also found women in these areas had reduced career outcomes
compared with men. ”Geographic constraints appear to be more disadvantageous for women,
and the career advantages associated with certain locations generally seem to help women much
less than men. For example, compared to men living in the same areas and women living
elsewhere, women located in high doctoral production regions are less likely to have tenure and
more likely to work part time. Both men and women in large cities are more likely to be
employed off the tenure track, but the women occupy these jobs far more often than the men (p.
24).” For our purposes, the relevant consequence of this argument was that women are more
likely to consider geography when deciding where to apply for academic jobs.
Data from more recent surveys continued to note the differential importance of location
for women. In its survey on chemists, the American Chemical Society (Ellis, 2001:23) reported,
“in searching for work, the inability to relocate is cited much more often by women than by men
as a constraint.” Among those chemists who were unemployed and actively seeking positions,
“close to 37 percent of women in 2000 noted that it was because of an inability to relocate,
whereas only 27.4 percent of men listed the same reason. Just over 15 percent of women, and
9.1 percent of men, said it was because of family responsibilities. 28.3 percent of the women
reported that they placed no restrictions in their job search, as opposed to men – 48.8 percent
reported no restrictions (Kreeger, 2001:14).” Bleak et al. (2000:14) noted recently hired female
faculty placed more emphasis than male faculty on location of the institution and employment
opportunities for their spouse or partner. Sears’ (2003:175) study of graduate students in science
and math programs at the University of California, Davis found “women were much more likely
than men to report that location was an important factor in job selection because of the location
of their spouses’ jobs or their desire to be close to family and friends.”21
An important consequence is that women may not choose to apply to as many jobs as
men, even among the Research I institutions. Women, especially married women, could be less
likely to apply to RI institutions in smaller towns, where there are fewer opportunities for
spouses. A second important consequence of mobility constraints might be that search
committees are less likely to offer women positions if the committee believes the woman will not
accept the offer.
21
Ellipses omitted.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 288
APPENDIXES
288
Prestige
The most prestigious institutions tend to do least well in recruiting female faculty. “The
higher up the academic-prestige ladder a university is, the fewer women it usually has in tenured
faculty positions. Research released showed that while the nation is doing a good job of turning
out women with research doctorates, the top 50 institutions in research spending are not doing
such a good job of hiring them (Wilson, 2004).”22
The under representation of women in the most prestigious departments could result
either from a lack of demand for female faculty in these departments or from a lack of supply of
female candidates. Potential faculty may be likely to consider the reputation of both the
department and the institution in deciding which jobs openings they will apply for. Some argue
greater prestige may not always be seen as a positive attribute by female applicants. “Women
just are not applying, “says Geraldine L. Richmond, who holds an endowed chair in chemistry at
the University of Oregon. She argues “many top-notch science departments have ‘toxic
atmospheres’ that suffocate women's enthusiasm for their work and steer them away from
research careers. But women are also rejecting elite research universities for other reasons, like
the fear that they will not have enough time for their families” (Wilson, 2004).
Kulis and Miller-Loessi (1992) offered a different rationale: higher prestige institutions
seek to attract high-powered researchers. In the past, those would more likely be men. The
authors noted women have been located outside informal prestige networks, making it harder for
women to be recognized and recruited.
Steinpreis et al. (1999) simulated a hiring situation by sending 238 male and female
academic psychologists one of four randomly selected versions of curriculum vitae (CV) along
with a questionnaire about the qualifications of the candidate. The CV was drawn from a real-
life, female scientist. Some versions of the CV contained a traditional male name; other
versions, a traditional female name. The authors found “both male and female academicians
were significantly more likely to hire a potential male colleague than an equally qualified
potential female colleague. Furthermore, both male and female participants were more likely to
positively evaluate the research, teaching, and service contributions of a male job applicant than
a female job applicant with an identical record (p. 522).”
Several other studies reach the similar conclusion that female candidates may be at a
disadvantage in both academic and non-academic labor markets:
• Cole et al. (2004) randomly sent business school students’ resumes to 40 employers,
who were asked to rate the resumes on a number of criteria. They found male
reviewers rated male applicants as having slightly more work experiences than female
applicants (not statistically significant), while female reviewers rated male applicants
as possessing significantly more work experience.
• Studies suggest women’s professional work is discounted more so than for men. For
example, a study of the outcomes of the peer-review system of the Swedish Medical
Research Council for postdoctoral fellowships found the success rate for female
applicants was less than half that of male applicants (Wenneras and Wold, 1997).
22
See also Bain and Cummings (2000).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 289
APPENDIXES 289
The situation applies not just to female versus male names as triggers, but also to female versus
male appearance. In the music world, very few women were playing with top orchestras in the
1970s. Then orchestras changed how the audition occurred: the musician was hidden behind a
screen and the stage was carpeted. The number of women successfully auditioning rose
significantly (Koretz, 1997; Goldin and Rouse, 2000). Women seem to get rated harder than
men do, both by men and women. However, one study did not find a disparity. In a review of
editors, reviewers, and authors regarding manuscripts submitted to JAMA in 1991, the authors
found there were gender differences in how editors worked and how reviewers made
recommendations, but they found final “manuscript acceptance rates did not differ across author
gender and editor gender combinations” (Gilbert et al., 1992). Another study by Swim et al.
(1989)—where the authors conducted a meta-analysis on studies drawing on the influential
experiment conducted by Goldberg in 1968—demonstrated that women rated publications
perceived to have been written by female authors less favorably than those thought to have been
written by males.
This bias could occur because of at least two different kinds of stereotypes about women
(Cole et al., 2004). Evaluators could have descriptive stereotypes. For example, they could
believe women “don’t have what it takes to succeed in competitive situations.” Alternatively,
evaluators could have prescriptive stereotypes. A woman perceived as behaving in an
unfeminine way to get an academic position could be negatively evaluated for her behavior. In
addition to broad gender stereotypes, gender stereotypes specific to the academic world, such as
a perception that women are less mobile or less committed to the profession, may affect
invitations to interview. Differences in the level of socialization among male and female
graduate students and postdocs may further impact an aspiring faculty member by affecting the
quality of letters of reference. This may be a significant problem. Trix and Psenka (2003), for
example, found recommendation letters for women for medical faculty positions were shorter,
less favorable, and focused more on women’s teaching abilities than the letters for men.23 In
general, perceptions regarding women, held by both men and women, may have a detrimental
effect on hiring or career advancement (Valian, 1998).
23
This is not a new problem. Stake et al. (1981) found letters of recommendation were more favorable when the
letter writers and the job seekers were of the same gender.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
