Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities (Innovations in Science Education and Technology)

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes INNOVATIONS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY Series Editor: Karen C. Cohen, Harvard U...

Author: Lilli S. Hornig

9 downloads 1312 Views 34MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes

INNOVATIONS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY Series Editor: Karen C. Cohen, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Are Schools Really Like This?: Factors Affecting Teacher Attitude toward School Improvement J. Gary Lilyquist

Education for a Sustainable Future: A Paradigm of Hope for the 21st Century Edited by Keith A. Wheeler and Anne Perraca Bijur

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities Edited by Lilli S. Hornig

Evaluation of Science and Technology Education at the Dawn of a New Millennium Edited by James W. Altschuld and David D. Kumar

A Love of Discovery: Science Education: The Second Career of Robert Karplus Robert G. Fuller

Place of Science in a World of Values and Facts Loucas G. Christophorou

Portable Technologies: Science Learning in Context Edited by Robert F. Tinker and Joseph S. Krajcik

Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice Edited by David D. Kumar and Daryl E. Chubin

Technology, Science Teaching, and Literacy: A Century of Growth Kenneth P. King

Time for Science Education Michael R. Matthews

Tutorial Distance Learning: Rebuilding Our Educational System Alfred Bork and Sigrun Gunnarsdottir

Web-Teaching: A Guide to Designing Interactive Teaching for the World Wide Web, Second Edition David W. Brooks, Diane E. Nolan, and Susan M. Gallagher

A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further information please contact the publisher.

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes Women in American Research Universities

Edited by

Lilli S. Hornig The Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard

Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Equal rites, unequal outcomes: women in American research universities/edited by Lilli S. Hornig (the Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard). p. em. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-306-47351-8 1. Women in higher education-United States. 2. Universities and colleges-United States-Graduate work-Administration. 3. Research institutes-United States-Administration. I. Hornig, Lilli S. II. Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard. LC1567 .E79 2003 378.1/9822-dc21 2002040598

ISBN: 0-306-47351-8 ©2003 Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013 http://www.wkap.nl/

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A c.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work

Preface

Thirteen years ago, in June 1988, the Radcliffe Class of 1953 celebrated its 35th Reunion. Amidst the festivities, we who participated repeatedly asked ourselves the same two questions: Is Harvard as sexist as it was when we were undergraduates? If not, what is the status of women at Harvard today? To find the answers we formed an ad hoc committee and charged the members to report back to the class in five years. The committee interviewed selected senior and junior Harvard faculty, Harvard and Radcliffe administrators, students, and alumni/ae. We identified and studied Harvard and Radcliffe reports on their institutions and on their student organizations. We contributed to and participated in a 1990 Radcliffe Focus Group, "A Survey ofAlumnae and Undergraduate Perceptions." We found that the University was not as sexist in 1988 as it had been in 1953. Yet the status of women, though improved, remained quite unequal to that of men. (Radcliffe College was organizationally separate from Harvard University until 1977, when a "non-merger merger" was implemented. However, Radcliffe had no faculty of its own and employed Harvard faculty to teach its students, in strictly separate classes until World War II. The merger effort was completed in 1999 with the complete integration of the two institutions and the formation of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, a "tub on its own bottom" like other Harvard graduate and professional schools.) In 1993 the Class of '53 voted unanimously to form the Committee for the Equality ofWomen at Harvard (CEWH). Our mandate was to promote gender equity within Harvard's faculty, student body, curriculum, and environment. Our initial focus was to urge a significant increase in the number of tenured women faculty. Gender equity within the faculty is not only a galvanizing issue, but is also both the model for and the source of most of the other steps toward equality for women v

vi


undergraduate and graduate students. It is to these students that the work of CEWH is dedicated. A word about CEWH's committed leadership. To begin with, at the 35th Reunion we were on the cusp ofa new life-stage where for most of us, work and/or family responsibilities were diminishing, bringing us time. In addition, we were enjoying a new level of caring about the generations following our own. We wanted the very best for the young and we longed to help them, particularly if we saw an opportunity to eliminate an injustice that we had experienced. Finally, it had taken many ofus much of our adult lives to become aware of gender discrimination. As college students in the 50s, almost to a woman, we did not see sexism, blatant as it was in that era: so, we were not allowed to eat in the Freshman Union; so, we were forbidden to enter the stacks of Widener Library, having to request books which were brought out to us while our male counterparts browsed among the Library's treasures. It seemed odd, perhaps, but totally acceptable. As our lives unfolded, however, the veil began to drop. Betty Friedan, William Chafe, Marilyn French loosened some of the threads. Comparisons of our salaries with those of our male peers yanked the cloth lower, particularly in the professions. Workshops and conferences tore holes in the fabric. Other great universities had the same shortfalls in gender equity as Harvard. At one such conference held at Radcliffe, the chair ofthe English department at Rutgers, Catherine R. Stimpson, led a brilliant panel on Women's Studies. Imagine: Women's Studies. The veil dropped lower. Professor Stimpson was the first presenter in this Conference on Women in Research Universities. Our gratitude to Lilli S. Hornig (Harvard M.A. '43, Ph.D. '50) for joining our Committee and leading this Conference is unbounded. Her scholarship, experience, and wisdom brought a new level of expertise to our work and culminated in the publication ofthis book. Our Committee had been able to shine a spotlight on the gender problems that continue to make Harvard, and all the major universities like it, an unequal opportunity for women. And now, through this volume, along with illustrations of the problems, best practices and concrete solutions are put forward. May they lead to constructive change. -Margaretta Schmertzler Founder and Chair, CEWH, 1988-1998

Acknowledgments

A great many people deserve my gratitude for their advice and help on this project. Perhaps I should begin with those who first alerted me to the realities of academic life in the 1940s-the distinguished members of the Harvard Chemistry Department who, however unwillingly, were my mentors in the wartime absence of the male disciples they clearly would have preferred. To them lowe my keen awareness of the struggles of women in research universities. The conference and this book, which resulted from it, owe a huge debt of thanks to two sets of people: members of the Committee for the Equality ofWomen at Harvard, and the people who helped generously to fund the enterprise. Among the latter I particularly thank Alison Bernstein and Janice Petrovich of the Ford Foundation, Ted Greenwood of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and Albert F. Gordon, Harvard '59, for their support and encouragement. Peggy Schmertzler was the founder and long-time chair of CEWH; without her remarkable spirit and energy neither this project nor the Committee's several other important and innovative projects would have happened, and we thank her most particularly. Many members also devoted much time and effort to organizing the conference and making it run smoothly. I especially thank Acey Welch and Ann Shapiro, currently co-chairs, as well as Joan Baer, Penelope Beye, Cornelia Dimmitt, Elisabeth Hatfield, Millie MarDin, Jane O'Reilly, Eleanor Williams, and Regina Yando. Along with many other contributions of advice and wisdom, Nancy Tobin has shepherded the book through its lengthier-than-usual gestation period resulting from my long illness; without her dedicated effort, this book could not have been completed. Similarly, Acey Welch took over many of the production details. All of them have my profound gratitude. vii

viii


Special thanks are also due to the CEWH members who served as workshop conveners and rapporteurs during the conference. Sandra Demson, Joanna Hopkins, Millie Marnin, Gabriella Schlesinger, Maria Tymoczko, and the late Bessye W. Bennett led the very lively discussions and reported on them with exemplary clarity. We are also indebted to Elizabeth Doherty, Assistant Dean for Academic Planning at Harvard College, and to Tamar March, Dean for Academic Programs at (former) Radcliffe College, for their help and cooperation. I also thank the contributors to this volume for their patience and forbearance with the delays in completion. However, I assume full responsibility for the errors that inevitably seem to creep into every manuscript. Last but by no means least, I thank my husband, Donald Hornig, for his support and his patience. -Lilli S. Hornig

Contents Introduction

1

Lilli S. Hornig PART I Dreaming and Scheming: Moving Towards Our University ....... 19

Catharine R. Stimpson 2

The Current Status of Women in Research Universities

31

Lilli S. Hornig 3

A National Profile of Academic Women in Research Universities

53

Helen S. Astin Christine M. Cress PART II 4

Gender, Faculty, and Doctoral Education in Science and Engineering

91

Mary Frank Fox 5

You've Come a Long Way: Data on Women Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in Research Universities

111

Charlotte V. Kuh 6

The Presence and Participation of Women in Academic Science and Engineering: 1973-1995

145

]. Scott Long 7

Explaining Sex Differences in Publication Productivity among Postsecondary Faculty

175

Kimberlee A. Shauman YuXie ix

x


PART III 8

Women in the Academy: Confronting Barriers to Equality ...... 211

Carol Hollenshead 9

Organizational Change to Support Success of Women: A Model and Its Lessons

227

Linda P. Fried Emma Stokes Susan MacDonald Cynthia Rand ]oanBathon

PART IV 10 Primatology, Archaeology, and Human Origins: Feminist Interventions

247

Landa Schiebinger 11 Transforming Knowledges: Anthropology's Encounters with Feminism(s)

257

Piya Chatterjee PART V 12 Women's Uneven Progress in Academia: Problems and Solutions

281

Marianne A. Ferber 13 Work/Family/Life Issues and Programs in Higher Education-What's New

311

Kathleen Sullivan Old Issues, New Solutions: Family and Work Response to Kathleen Sullivan

318

Rae Simpson CONCLUSIONS 14 Conclusions

325

Lilli S. Hornig Barbara Lazarus Bibliography

337

Index

361

Contributors

377

Introduction Lilli S. Hornig

The last thirty years have seen enormous changes in the status of women in research universities. Barely tolerated in many such institutions even as students at the beginning of the period, women were essentially absent from the ranks of full professors, and were only small fractions of all faculty ranks. In 1977 in chemistry departments, for example, women made up just 1.9 percent of all faculty ranks in the top 25 universities (ordered by research and development expenditures) and in mathematics that proportion was 2.7 percent (National Academy of Sciences 1979:68). The Women's Caucus of the American Physical Society published what came to be known as the Zeros Table, listing the great majority of research departments that had no women faculty at all. A chemistry department chairman in a flagship state university declared that "over my dead body" would there ever be a tenured woman in his department. Just over twenty years later there are women on the permanent as well as the probationary faculties of every university, in the arts, sciences, and humanities, in medical, law, and engineering schools. But there are still not very many women in the professorial ranks of any ofthese institutions, although they fill a disproportionately high number of the off-ladder, temporary, part-time, and adjunct positions. It was the scarcity of women faculty, especially tenured professors, at Harvard University that prompted the conference on Women in Research Universities: The Next QJt-arter Century, held at Harvard and Radcliffe in November 1998 under the auspices of the Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard (CEWH). This book is based on the updated papers Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities Edited by Hornig, Kluwer Academic/plenum Publishers, 2003

2


presented at the conference, with some later additions. CEWH is composed of Harvard and Radcliffe alumnae/i who have ongoing concerns with the education of women at these institutions, now merged into one. The salient issue for the Committee has long been the dearth of women senior faculty at Harvard. Basic information-gathering made it clear that Harvard was not alone: the other major private universities as well as the many public research universities were almost equally low in proportions ofwomen tenured faculty, although Harvard's unique practice of not granting tenure at the associate professor level tended to depress its numbers slightly. The purpose of the Conference, then, was to examine the current status of the female professoriate in research institutions from several perspectives, to seek an understanding of the factors that still seem to hinder women's progress in these universities, and to identifY policies and practices that contribute to greater equality in the recruitment, retention, and promotion of women faculty. Since the Committee has always had great interest in the situation of women students in formerly all-male or predominantly male institutions, we also hoped to examine the impact on these students ofbeing educated in a climate that, in the absence ofwomen faculty and high level administrators, may not always be equitable. A few weeks after our Conference, women faculty issues in research universities gained national attention by MIT's public admission that women tenured faculty in its School of Science were underpaid, given less space and fewer leadership opportunities than their male colleagues, and hampered in their research by various forms ofmarginalization (MIT 1999; Science 1999:1992). In January 2001, as an outgrowth of this report by a committee chaired by Prof. Nancy Hopkins, MIT hosted a landmark meeting of presidents and provosts of nine research universities to discuss the widespread complaints ofwomen faculty and seek solutions to their problems. (Lawler 2001:806; Long 2001:8; Nadis 2001:653). To our knowledge this is the first acknowledgement ever by any such institution that these problems actually exist and that something needs to be done about them. It is also a timely affirmation of the concerns that form the substance of this book. In the nine universities in this group (Berkeley, CalTech, Harvard, MIT, Michigan, Penn, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale) women faculty in chemistry, for example, make up a total of 7 percent of full professors, 16 percent of associate professors, and 14 percent of assistant professors-compared to 31 percent of recent Ph.D.s. (Lawler 2001:806).

Introduction

3

There are compelling reasons for believing that full equality for women in the academic world, and hence in a variety of professions, cannot be attained without achieving such status in the research universities. These institutions are at the forefront of research and scholarship in all disciplines; they educate the majority of undergraduate and graduate students of high ability; they produce far more research, knowledge, and innovation and they are larger, wealthier, and much more influential in our national life than other academic institutions. The benefits they offer their faculties are not matched elsewhere: their libraries, laboratories, and other facilities are superior, the colleagues and collaborators the most productive, and most importantly, their students are excellent. In most academic fields the rewards for distinguished work-Nobel and other prizes, election to honorary societies, prominent advisory positions, board memberships, and widespread recognition-eome predominantly to faculty in these universities. In recent decades members of these faculties have occupied many positions of power and prominence in national affairs. They tend to accumulate more wealth than other academics. And they train the great majority of all Ph.D.s, a fact which broadens their influence and reputation beyond the borders of their own institutions. Specifically, in 1998 a total of 118 universities awarded 79.8 percent of all doctorates earned in the previous year (Sanderson, Dugoni, Hoffer, and Selfa 1999:5). Attaining equality in these universities and gaining their considerable benefits is enormously important for women scholars and scientists. To understand the reasons for the difficulty of that quest and for its slow progress, as well as the prospects for change, we must look briefly at the history of higher education over the last several decades. Before doing that, we must also define "research university" more specifically. The category as a whole is described by the Carnegie Classification of Postsecondary Institutions (Evangelauf 1994: A17) and further subdivided into Research Universities I (RU I) and Research Universities II (RU II). The classification is prepared by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and is updated from time to time, the last two assessments having been published in 1987 and 1994. It is based on the overall function of each type of institution, i.e., Ph.D.-granting, master's, baccalaureate, or two-year degree, further divided by certain other criteria, and includes a total of over 3600 accredited institutions. The RU category is subdivided on the basis of number of Ph.D.s and federal research funding; RU Is award 50 or more doctoral degrees annually and receive $40 million or more in federal support, and RU lIs award similar

4


numbers ofPh.D.s but receive between $15.5 million and $40 million in federal funds (Evangelauf 1994:A18). Although the Carnegie Foundation stresses that the classification is not a quality rating, it is widely treated as a proxy for academic quality. The RU I group includes 88 universities, constitutes 2.4 percent of the total, and is the fastest-growing category; the RU II group makes up another 1 percent. Together these two groups educate well over three quarters of all U.S. doctorates. To date, women, either as students or faculty, have never gained an equal share of the advantages conferred by membership in these universities. Although the exclusion of women from higher education and from most professions had ancient roots in the monastic and ecclesiastical traditions that shaped much of our higher education system, women had achieved near-equality among college graduates by the beginning of World War II, earning some 44 percent of baccalaureate degrees. But the GI Bill, technically known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, changed all that. Ever since, it has been hailed as the pivotal event that opened higher education to all classes, and that was certainly its signal accomplishment, despite early and quite vigorous opposition by most selective universities and colleges (Olson 1974:33). Assumed by most people to be a reward and a tribute to our defenders from a grateful nation, it was in fact designed to avoid massive unemployment and social unrest when "the boys" returned (Olson 1974:24). Memories of the Depression and its Veteran's March on Washington were fresh in the minds of legislators. More than 2.2 million veterans took advantage of the educational benefits provided in the immediate postwar era, over 97 percent of them men (Hornig 1984:32; Olson 1974:43-44). Very few women were entitled to benefits, not even, for example, the intrepid pilots who ferried bombers across the North Atlantic. By 1950 women's share of baccalaureate degrees had shrunk to just under 24 percent, although their actual numbers continued to grow (Babco 2000:67). The GJ. Bill had unintended, unforeseen, and disastrous consequences for women. The influx of veterans put the most pressure on the top institutions, since the government would pay for a man at the best institution he could get into. As Time magazine put it, "why go to Podunk when the government will send you to Yale?" (quoted in Olson 1974:45). In response to the pressure for places, leading universities simply reduced or restricted women's admissions to gain space in overcrowded classrooms and dormitories. At the University of Michigan, for example, freshman women's enrollments were cut nearly one-third in 1946 and the quota

Introduction

5

remained until 1952 (McGuigan 1970:112). Similar reductions were in effect at many other universities. The eventual outcome was, of course, to displace even very able women into less prestigious, lower-quality colleges, many of them the former teacher's colleges or "normal schools" now refurbished as "state colleges." Equipped and staffed to prepare schoolteachers but generally inadequate to train students for graduate work, they tended to be particularly deficient in facilities and faculty for science and engineering fields. Their female graduates had little chance of competing successfully for places in graduate and professional schools that already looked askance at women, maintaining low quotas of 5 percent to 8 percent in medical schools, about 3 percent in law schools, and 2 percent or less in engineering and veterinary schools. Additionally, financial aid for women students averaged about two-thirds of men's; in 1969-70, male college sophomores received $671 but females only $515 in institutionally administered funds (Haven and Horch 1972). Women's support problems were compounded by their lower earnings (about 60 percent of men's) due to sex differentials in pay and by smaller loans before passage of the Equal Credit Act in the 1960s. As women became more aware throughout the 1960s of the inequities imposed on them by universities, the academic women's movement for equality gained momentum under the gathering impact of the great civil rights legislation of that decade. Although Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act outlawed sex discrimination in employment, it did not include higher education; in 1969 the law was extended to education by Executive Order 11246 as amended by 11375, but regulations for its implementation were not issued until late 1972. In the meantime several Ivy League universities began admitting women undergraduates, whom they had excluded specifically until then, and began liberalizing their graduate admissions as well. Although this action appeared to be a move toward gender equity, it was in fact financially so advantageous for the universities that few could afford to ignore its possibilities, and only CalTech held out for another decade or so. During this period most major universities were "tenured in," committed to faculties that had expanded in the plush years of government support in the 1960s and were now underutilized. This was the case especially in the arts and humanities, as male students turned increasingly to the sciences, business, and other utilitarian disciplines. It was widely assumed that admitting women would fill liberal arts classes while requiring little or no additional expenditures in more expensive fields. The Carnegie Commission on Higher

6


Education, in analyzing the impact of adding women, found that Princeton, for example, "could admit women at a marginal educational cost per student that was below their tuition and fee charges and very much below their quite heavily subsidized average cost of education per student. This was possible in part because women tended to choose fields of study that were not especially popular with men, thus permitting the institution to take advantage of economies of scale by utilizing faculty and other resources in those fields more intensively" (Carnegie Council 1975). Put more bluntly, women looked like cash cows. Potential sex equality acquired a firmer basis with the passage in 1972 of Title IX of the Higher Education Amendments, better known as the Women's Educational Equity Act. It mandated equal treatment ofwomen in all aspects of higher education, including recruitment, admissions, financial aid, hiring, promotion, salary, and benefits, in institutions receiving federal support. Although, again, final regulations for its implementation were not issued for nearly four years, the academic establishment was quickly up in arms. The Association of American Universities, an elite group of some fifty leading institutions at the time, and other higher education associations argued bitterly against the requirement that they begin hiring women and minority faculty, on the grounds that it was subjecting them to "the hiring standards of the construction industry." The president of a flagship state university was heard complaining to a colleague that "it's getting so every broad with a Ph.D. thinks she's entitled to a place on my faculty." Faculty members with no expertise in the civil rights area (or of course in women's studies) wrote books to demonstrate that marriage and motherhood made it impossible for women to be taken seriously as scholars (Lester 1974). The widespread feelings of outrage had been undergirded neatly by Nathan Pusey, then president of Harvard, when in 1969 he criticized the drafting of college students with the phrase, "we shall be left with the lame, the blind, and the women." Because of the financial advantages, then, women students experienced little difficulty in being admitted to research universities. Recruitment of women and minority faculty, however, was another matter. Implementation and enforcement of Title IX was a long drawn out and contentious process, with universities objecting endlessly to having any requirements at all imposed on them, specifically the "goals and timetables" called for by the regulations. A book-length study by the Carnegie Council for Policy Studies in Higher Education (1975) as well as Congressional hearings (Special Subcommittee on Education 1975) detail

Introduction

7

a frustrating series of impediments raised by the universities. In hindsight it has become clear that while legal pressures ultimately led to more hiring ofwomen at the assistant professor level, goals were rarely set at higher ranks and the laws were not enforced at the tenure level. (See Leap 1993 for an extended examination of court decisions in cases where it was charged that women failed to gain tenure because of sex discrimination. ) Certain effects of the new legislation showed up quickly. Women's proportion of law degrees, for example, began a steep rise in 1973, reflecting the loosening of restrictions in 1970. In medicine and veterinary medicine, a sharp upward trend began in 1974; the difference between law and the medical fields arises, of course, from the difference in the required length of training. For doctoral degrees in arts and sciences, however, the increases were slower (Chamberlain 1988:204-205). By 1997 women earned two-thirds of degrees in veterinary medicine, a field in which they earned just 1.5 percent of the degrees in 1950 (Babco 2000:100). Women Ph.D.s in arts and sciences increased from about 12 percent in 1970 to about 42 percent of all doctorates awarded in 1998, and to 48 percent of those earned by US citizens (Sanderson et al. 1999:82-85). Although the possible causes of differences in growth rates between professional degrees and Ph.D.s have not been investigated specifically, one likely explanation lies in the different practices for admitting students. In professional schools admissions committees resemble those of undergraduate schools in that they cut across individual department lines and select students by a uniform set of standards. In the graduate schools of research universities, on the other hand, students are admitted on a departmental basis, giving rather free reign to individual faculty members in expressing their prejudices and idiosyncracies. The professional school model is amenable to administrative direction and responsive to institutional policy, while the graduate school practice tends to resist administrative intervention. In addition to such concerns, the time to completion of a degree also plays a major role in how fast change can take place. Professional degrees require at most four years of study, while research doctorates currently take an average oflO.5 years, up from 8.5 years in 1973 (Sanderson et al. 1999:18). Disciplines vary greatly in the time required for a doctorate, and that variation (as well as differences among fields and institutions) in turn arises from numerous factors including financial aid, opportunity costs compared to other activities such as paid work, state of the labor

8


market, and family responsibilities (Tuckman, Coyle, and Bae 1990: Chs. 2-4). Overall, the physical sciences have the shortest degree completion times, the humanities and education the longest, with a total spread in 1998 from 6.8 years in chemistry to 20.0 years in education. Contrary to popular mythology, gender differences in completion times are small within fields, ranging from 0.3 years less for women in chemistry to 0.7 years less for men in education in 1998 (Sanderson et al. 1999:82-85). The single most striking factor in accounting for field differences appears to be the amount of financial aid. In the physical sciences, where the shortest completion times are found, most graduate students are fully supported, while in the humanities and education, with the longest times to degree, there is very little financial aid. Interestingly, women predominate in fields with little support and men in fully supported fields (Chamberlain 1988:211). This curious relationship merits detailed study. In the 1970s universities claimed, quite correctly, that they couldn't have women faculty if women weren't earning doctorates and doing advanced work. This explanation, widely known as the "pipeline" problem, has persisted well after its justification disappeared. The institutions failed to note, however, that their own deliberate policies of exclusion and marginalization had created the problem. Women who had been held to a quota of 1 percent or 2 percent in engineering schools, for example, received a clear signal that this was not a welcoming profession for them. The multitude of slights, exclusions, insults, forms of sexual harassment and other restrictions women were subjected to in universities formed the basis of Congressional hearings conducted by Rep. Edith Green of Ohio that led to the passge of Title IX. Harris' report (Harris 1970) detailed a compendium ofoffenses to women students and scholars that became the start of an extended series of academic women's "war stories." The opposition to hiring and promoting permanent women faculty at research universities suggested that women simply couldn't quite make the grade, while women argued that they weren't even allowed to try. Over time both sides settled on family responsibilities as an uneasy if respectable out. The long term solution to this institutional constraints vs. individual problems debate-the creation of an academic workplace that fits both men's and women's lives and needs-remains in its infancy, as we shall see. By the mid-1970s the research universities faced a somewhat problematic future. Large-scale infusions of federal funds for research support had been declining for several years, and with the conclusion of the Vietnam War and the ending of the draft, fewer men were pursuing graduate

Introduction

9

studies. Faculties were heavily tenured in, some as high as 75 percent, leaving little maneuvering room. Most universities decreed a steady-state policy on faculty hiring, filling teaching needs instead with a growing corps ofpart time, adjunct and unranked instructors, many ofwhom were women, and making the process of awarding tenure ever more stringent. Among junior faculty undergoing tenure reviews it became a bitter joke that most of the people sitting in judgment on them would not pass muster themselves under the new criteria. As many more women took advantage oftheir newly confirmed rights to equal treatment in academe by stepping up their enrollments in undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools, their growing presence among aspirants to faculty posts continued to generate somewhat mixed feelings in the academic community. On the one hand their fees, and therefore their presence in the student body, were welcome; on the other hand, their competition for ever scarcer professorships was not. But women also had some difficult decisions to make about investing large amounts of time and money in training for a problematic future. As we shall see in the following chapters, progress in the presence of women on research faculties has been slow, lagging well behind the increasing supply ofcandidates. Many factors played a part in the process, among them legal pressures, societal changes, growing participation by women, widening recognition of their abilities as well as their rights, fluctuations in labor markets, and many others. Among the most resistant to analysis are the trade-offs women, but rarely men, must make between careers and personal lives. The opportunity costs of a demanding career for women may include foregoing marriage and/or children while the rewards, at least to date, are somewhat smaller than men's. The decisions women must make about high-level academic careers are thus qualitatively different from men's. An additional and serious problem is that women's decisions about the balance between career and other aspects of life as well as decisions about hiring and promotion by individual departments are each essentially unique. The tradeoffs among family or other personal needs, career aspirations, geographic restrictions, spouses' or partners' career needs, and other highly individual factors are complex and usually quite specific to a particular person. On the other hand departmental decisions also have many issues specific to the particular unit: specialized requirements for certain subfields, optimal use of existing facilities, departmental age distribution, likely upcoming retirements of present members, the obvious desire to find the best possible candidate who meets all these

10


requirements without competing too much with existing personnel, and finally the personal, idiosyncratic, perhaps stereotypical, attitudes of each department member. Faculty autonomy in hiring and promotion decisions is a carefully guarded privilege that tends to be confused with academic freedom under such circumstances (Kennedy 1999:126-131). To examine the particulars of these very complex issues we have divided the general topic into five major sections. In the first, we create a snapshot ofwomen's current status in research universities and assess how it has changed since the early 1970s from several perspectives: in numbers, in rank and tenure status, and in the settings and climates in which they work in various institutions. Our concern here is to distinguish between changes in women's aspirations against the background ofnew legal rights and changes in institutional responses as well as in academic resources and labor markets. Many of these changes come into sharper focus in science and engineering fields, the topic ofPart II. Women have increased their participation in these fields as students markedly, but these increases have not been reflected adequately in their presence on faculties. Accordingly, we examine the science and engineering pipeline in considerable detail. In Part III we approach questions of how sex inequities in research universities have been identified and ameliorated in two distinct and different academic settings, those of an entire large flagship state institution and of a single large department in a private medical school. Part IV explores some of the fundamental contributions of women's studies to established disciplines to see how this approach has enlarged and enriched the curriculum. Finally, in Part V we turn to concerns with the family and work issues that both institutions and individual women regard as a central problem in research universities. The problem exists in all work settings, of course, but it is exacerbated in these intensely competitive and demanding institutions. At the same time and despite the demands, working in a university may offer women much more flexibility and autonomy-a great advantage. Significantly, reconciling these claims is becoming more ofa "people" problem than one of only women. In a changed climate of family demands and expectations, men are more in need of support structures as well. We begin by considering, in Catharine Stimpson's keynote address to the conference, Chapter One, a vision of how the research university of the future might better reflect not simply a more realistic gender balance but a new paradigm of disciplinary and interdisciplinary frameworks and

Introduction

11

comprehensive approaches to scholarship. From there we proceed in Chapter Two to Hornig's account of the present status of women in Research Universities I and to an overview of the policies and practices that are in place in some of them to facilitate more equitable recruitment, retention, and promotion. In Chapter Three, Astin and Cress report on their national survey of the attitudes and experiences of women in research universities and compare them to their male colleagues. Part II focuses on women in the sciences-natural, mathematical and social-and in engineering. It is widely understood that women doctorates are relatively concentrated in the humanities fields, primarily in languages and literature, as well as in behavioral and certain social sciences, and are comparatively scarce in the natural and mathematical sciences and in engineering. Over the last several decades, however, the demand for science and engineering Ph.D.s in universities has been much greater than for humanities doctorates. Partly for this reason, and partly because of lingering doubts in some quarters that women have the ability to do important work in scientific fields, it is of considerable interest to examine how women have fared in academic science. It is also especially appropriate to our topic because advanced research in the sciences is done very largely in major universities (as well as in industry, which employed very few women scientists until very recently). This is so because such work usually requires expensive facilities and equipment, as well as large research teams. An additional problem in these fields is that a new faculty member, even at the assistant professor level, generally requires large startup funding from the university, often of the order of $500,000 or more; some departments may be reluctant to risk such an investment on someone they perceive as not likely to stay permanently. In Chapter Four, Fox examines the cultures and climates of graduate science departments and the effects of these factors on women's participation and position in these fields. In particular, she identifies why it matters that there are women faculty members present in order for women students to derive the same benefits as men. Chapter Five, by Kuh, looks at the interplay between the "pipeline," i.e., the growth in the supply of women doctorates, and the basically static demand for faculty in research universities. In Chapter Six Long addresses the ultimate outcomes for women science and engineering faculty in detail in order to account adequately for the observed sex differences. Overall, Part II presents a more finely detailed career structure for these science fields (including social sciences) than is possible in the humanities, where the necessary research by field remains to be updated.

12


An earlier assessment (Ahern and Scott 1981) can serve as a baseline for such studies. The widespread belief that women scholars are less productive than their male counterparts has been a powerful deterrent to their placement in the most selective universities. Productivity, very generally assessed as the number of publications-papers in refereed journals, scholarly books, presentations and invited papers at conferences, even patents in some areas-is an important dividing line between research institutions and colleges devoted primarily to teaching. (Note, however, that a number of "research colleges" also stress research productivity, but to a much smaller extent than universities.) Although criteria for promotion are most often defined as teaching, research, and service, in that order, at major universities it is the research that counts most heavily. When studies in the 70s found that women published less-sometimes much less-than men, the finding quickly became the leading argument against hiring women faculty although it tended to be implicit rather than explicit. Productivity studies in that period usually compared women and men faculty across disciplines in one institution, or alternatively women and men in a given field or group of fields across a number of institutions. Neither approach yields very meaningful results because of large differences among fields in publication patterns as well as differences in expectations even among research universities. The Committee on the Education and Employment ofWomen in Science and Engineering (CEEWISE) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported in 1979 that they could find no studies of productivity that had accounted adequately for "factors such as access to appropriate research facilities, division of time between undergraduate and graduate teaching responsibilities, and especially availability of graduate and other research assistants," Their report went on to state, "As we have shown...the distribution of women faculty in research departments is such that productivity comparisons between men and women of similar age and experience in the same field and institutions, and thus with comparable research opportunities, are virtually impossible" (NAS 1979:87). That situation has changed over the years at least to the extent of increasing the numbers so that valid analyses are indeed possible. In Chapter Seven, Shauman and Xie demonstrate the dependence of productivity on the research setting, laying to rest one of the criticisms that has been most damaging to women in the sciences. The third major section of the book discusses, in Chapters Eight and Nine by Hollenshead and Fried respectively, how some major equity

Introduction

13

issues of concern to women faculty were tackled in two very different settings. At the University of Michigan plans were developed over a period of years to make the campus a more welcoming and equitable place for women at all levels; it is an ongoing process and is characterized by extensive data gathering, input from many parts of the University, dose cooperation by administrators, and vigorous leadership by the president. At the Department ofMedicine ofthe Johns Hopkins Medical School, the impetus came from dissatisfied women faculty who enlisted the help of the department chairman to equalize resources and reduce their marginalization. The lessons to be drawn from these two quite disparate situations and solutions have wide applicability. In Pan N we attempt to indicate the scope and importance of the rapidly expanding fields that comprise the area called women's studies. These had their origins in the civil rights era, along with academic women's struggle for equality, and they both furthered and hampered that struggle before winning broader recognition. Even some supporters feared that setting aside the study ofwomen as a separate discipline would simply facilitate the marginalization of women in a scholarly backwater, "the home ec. of the future," as someone termed it. Over time, however, these fears receded; the findings of the new discipline in both empirical and theoretical directions and its reconfiguring of at least parts of the academic landscape, as suggested by Stimpson above, proved far too interesting to put aside. In the humanities, the rediscovery and reinterpretation of women's work and women's history reinvigorated many fields. In the social sciences, a vast body of empirical findings came to light, literally revolutionizing much traditional thinking. Such simple findings as that by far the major portion ofdaily calorie intake in hunter-gatherer societies was provided by the gatherers rather than the hunters astonished scholars who had assumed the opposite. The range ofdisciplines that flowered with the addition ofwomen's studies is far too great to cover in this volume. We have chosen just two fields to illustrate the scope and breadth of possibilities that are opened when traditional fields are viewed through a different lens. In Chapter Ten, Schiebinger introduces us to the new world of primatology, a field of the natural sciences that has undergone a sea change when examined from a female perspective. Chatterjee illuminates, in Chapter Eleven, the insights to be gained by approaching anthropology with a feminist rather than a masculine and colonial mentality. The fifth and final section is devoted to an examination of the policies and practices that have been suggested as well as implemented to create an


14

academic working environment that is more responsive to a changing society. The structure ofwork in major universities evolved to meet the needs of men and ofthe male lifecourse at a time when women were believed unable to compete. Although some changes-extending the tenure clock, parental leave, and others-have been instituted in many universities, these often don't meet all the needs of a changing academic workforce. In Chapter Twelve, Ferber details the problems women encounter simply as women. Familiar as these are to most women scholars at research universities (and many other institutions as well), reminding the conference participants of their importance resonated loudly, as did the many remedies, large and small, that Ferber proposed. Sullivan and Simpson, in Chapter Thirteen, continue with their experience gained from administering a variety of policies and practices at Stanford and MIT, respectively. In a concluding chapter, Fourteen, Hornig and Lazarus summarize the many lessons learned at the conference; their discussion also includes many suggestions and experiences recounted by participants in several workshop sessions.

REFERENCES Ahern, Nancy C., and Elizabeth L. Scott. 1981. Careeroutcomesina matched sample ofmen and women Ph.D.s. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Babco, Eleanor L. 2000. Professional women and minorities. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. 1975. Making affirmative action work in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chamberlain, Mariam K, ed. 1988. ffiJmen in academe: Progress and prospects. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Evangelauf, Jean. 1994. A new Carnegie classification. The Chronicle of Higher Education XL (April 6). Harris, Ann Sutherland. 1970. The second sex in academe. AAUP Bulletin 56 (3): 283-295. Haven, Elizabeth W., and Dwight H. Horch. 1972. How college students finance their education. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Introduction

15

Hornig, Lilli S. 1984. Women in science and engineering: Why so few? Technology ReJliew 87 (Nov/Dec): 30-41. Kennedy, Donald. 1997. Academic duty. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Lawler, Andrew. 2001. College heads pledge to remove barriers. Science 291 (February): 806. Leap, Terry L. 1993. Tenure, discrimination, and the courts. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press. Lester, Richard A. 1974. Antibias regulation ofuniversities: Faculty problems and their solutions. New York: McGraw-Hill. Long, Janice. 2001. Gender equity: Promises made. Chemical and Engineering News 79 (February 5): 8. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1999. A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. McGuigan, Dorothy Gies. 1970. A dangerous experiment: 100 years of women at the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Nadis, Steve. 2001. Top research universities face up to gender bias. Nature 409 (8 February): 653. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Education and Employment of Women in Science and Engineering. 1979. Climbing the academic ladder: Doctoral women scientists in academe. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Olson, Keith W. 1974. The G.!. Bill, the veterans, and the colleges. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Sanderson, Allen R., et al. 1999. Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 1998. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. Special Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, Second Session. 1975. Hearings: Civil rights obligations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Tuckman, Howard, Susan Coyle, and Yupin Bae. 1990. On time to the doctorate: A study ofthe increased time to complete doctorates in science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Chapter One

Dreaming and Scheming Moving Towards Our Universityl Catharine R. Stimpson

Fortunate woman that I am) I have been invited to dream about a research university of the future. Inhibited woman that I can be) I will not take us into the domains of speculative fiction where visiting professors can travel from one galaxy to the next, where professors and students might be hybrids who carry the genes of several species) and where information passes swiftly from mind to mind-without benefit of speech or writing or audiovisual aids. I believe that if we scheme patiently and persistently enough) my dream might be realized within the next few years. For it melds materials that we now have on hand) not materials that we have yet to invent. My dream combines and recombines elements from the modem research university and from women)s studies) that daring bluestocking ofmany colors-in her sandals or sneakers or boots or pumps or Dr. Martens-who has marched into the university and claimed her rightful place. Most dreams have their roots in the actualities of the past. So does mine) specifically in the 1860s in the United States. The first is the birth of the research university in America) which coincided at many points with the growth ofwomen's colleges and women)s education. Both movements demonstrate the push towards greater and greater education that is a hallmark of modernization. In 1861, the year in which Vassar College was chartered) Yale University awarded the first doctor of philosophy degree in the United States) to be followed by New York University. Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities Edited by Hornig, Kluwer Academic/plenum Publishers, 2003

19

20


In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act, which founded the great land-grant universities. In the last part of the 19th century, the American research university grew rapidly, taking as its model the new German university that stressed seminars, laboratory research, and a scholarly monograph. Between 1815 and 1918, over 10,000 Americans studied at these institutions, at least half of them at the University of Berlin, itself founded in 1810. Several of these Americans returned from their international studies to become university presidents, architects of 20th-century American higher education, and formidable patriarchs: Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, Daniel Coit Gilman of Johns Hopkins, Andrew D. White of Cornell, James D. Angell of Michigan, G. Stanley Hall of Clark, Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia, Benjamin Ide Wheeler of California. Such names are carved into the stones of the American research university, institutions that have grown to become sites of great achievement and well-documented growth. In 1930, they received $22 million of federal support; in 1960, $405 million; in 1998, $13.5 billion. If the 125 research universities today represent but 3% of all institutions of higher education, they nevertheless award 32% of the baccalaureate degrees. Of the people who received science and engineering doctorates from 1991 to 1995, 56 % of them had taken their baccalaureates in research universities. To be sure, not every American scholar applauded this muscular evolution. Perhaps, the most pungent mockery spurted out ofWilliam James, one of America's great intellectuals. In March, 1903, James published his polemic, "The Ph.D. Octopus," in the Harvard Monthly. In spirit and often in substance, James' critique ofthe research university as rigid, mechanistic, unfeeling, and indifferent to teaching anticipates that of Women's Studies. He compared the awarding ofdoctoral degrees to an octopus, to him a cephalopod with a pouch-shaped body and eight tentacles that seizes its prey and paralyzes it with poisonous secretions. James also described the Ph.D. as a "a tyrannical machine with unforeseen powers of exclusion and corruption" (James 1987:113). For James, these two metaphors-the octopus and the tyrannical machine, one drawn from nature, one from culture-represent a "grotesque tendency" in both the university and United States society at large. We are becoming what we now call the "credentialed society," preferring outward badges to inward value. Moreover, as James urgently warns his readers, there is no guarantee that a Ph.D. can teach. "Notoriously," James writes, "his moral, social and personal characteristics may utterly disqualify him for success in the

Dreaming and Scheming: Moving Towards Our University

21

classroom; and of these characteristics his doctor's examination is unable to take any account." James tacks up a blazing, bracing series of warning signs on the perimeter of a dreamer's university: "Rigidity and Fear of Creativity: Do Not Enter"; "Tide Worship: Keep Away"; "Preferring the System to the Person: Do Not Even Think of Parking Here." Today, even greater criticism from a wide variety of sources is being slung at the American research university. It is variously charged from different perspectives not only with neglecting teaching (Kenny 1998), with also overproducing doctorates; with regarding divisions of continuing education as cash cows rather than as vital centers of lifelong learning; with permitting political correctness to corrupt academic standards. In addition to criticism, the research university is under real and "increased fiscal constraint," which has put pressure on research funding except in biomedicine (Brand 1998). In addition to criticism and fiscal constraint, the research university-to a degree many faculty members have not yet grasped-has strong competition as a "content provider" from new, forprofit educational companies and as a research center from private, for-profit biotechnology and software companies. Like others, I believe that the American research university-a 20th century colossus-must change or slowly atrophy. Women's studies has been among the most powerful and influential sources of critique of the research university, particularly for its historic indifference to racial and gender equity in student bodies, faculties, administrations, and trustees. However, simultaneously, women's studies has been an affirming force, taking as a central obligation the recovery of women's knowledge-both knowledge about women and the knowledge of women. This recovery has been, in turn, part of the reinvention of education that has been the large ambition of women's studies. A few weeks ago I was in a meeting room in a conference center in the suburbs of New Jersey. A well-meaning organization had brought a varied group together to discuss careers outside of the academy for freshly-minted doctorates in the humanities. "Tell me," I asked a man from a big financial services company, "what is the ideal profile of a potential employee with a Ph.D. in the humanities?" He answered without hesitation, "Team player, collaborative, able to think across the disciplines, not afraid to go outside the box, problem-solver. " I thanked him but during the coffee break, sought out a friend. "Team player, collaborative, able to think across the disciplines,"

22


I repeated, halfin annoyance, halfin rue, "For thirty years, that's been the ideal profile of someone in women's studies, but does anybody know it?" The answer to my rhetorical question is, of course, "Not exactly." This is a great pity, because women's studies has made such immense contributions to education in general and to the research university in particular. It has done so even though it has made mistakes, lacked money and power, been ignored because of its reputation as a "woman's thing," and endured demonization as a coven of politically correct witches who hate God, man, and footnotes with equal fury (Boxer 1998).2 To note but three of its contributions to my dream: First, women's studies has a vision ofteaching and learning that classrooms can flesh out. To borrow from Jane Roland Martin, women's studies asks that we add "care, concern, and connection" to the curriculum. Moreover, we can add "care, concern, and connection" without sacrificing argument and disputation, and without turning out either mealymouthed sycophants or sentimentalists. This vision insists that every woman, even one stigmatized as foolish or dumb, is capable oflearning. Boldly, women's studies has rewritten Aristotle to read, "All men and women by nature desire to know" (Aristotle 1947:243). Learning can be lonely and arduous, but more often, it is a lifelong process of critical thinking and of making fresh, valuable connections-among learners, among disciplines, among ideas, between thought and feeling, between thought and action. A teacher is not a magisterial, and usually masculine, authority figure. Rather, a teacher is a mentor and companion in exploration. The process of learning changes the learner. She, or he, becomes stronger, smarter, more in tune with life, more alert to realities, more capable and capacious. Second, doing the work of teaching and learning, women's studies explores significant areas and subjects. It asks the fundamental question of what gender is. What are its biological, social, and cultural causes? Why, for example, does French have "la plume" and "Ie oiseau" while English has "the feather" and "the bird"? Women's studies then explores the destructive consequences and disabilities of our gender structures. Why have so many societies given men powers over women, powers exercised both benignly and cruelly? These explorations, however, are not only ends in themselves. They also ask how we can rid ourselves of these powers, a task made so difficult because these powers are sustained in our institutions, our minds, and our psyches. As Virginia Valian suggests, we invisibly cling to ideas about gender that harm women. She writes about


23

"a set ofimplicit, or nonconscious, hypotheses about sex differences plays a central role in shaping men's and women's professional lives. These hypotheses, which I call gender schemas, affect our expectations of men and women, our evaluations of their work, and their performance as professionals. Both men and women hold the same gender schemas and begin acquiring them in early childhood. Their most important consequence for professional life is that men are constantly overrated, while women are underrated" (Valian 1998). Once again combining critique and productive scholarship, women's studies then explores the constructive consequences of our gender structures, such creations and accomplishments ofwomen as the women's rights movements on the one hand or great novels on the other. Despite these achievements, as women's studies shows, often with acute pain, there are many differences among women, some constructive but many destructive. White American husbands may have ruled their white American wives, but these wives did own black slaves of both sexes. Because of its willingness to engage in complex acts ofacknowledgment ofthe many differences among us, women's studies has been able to be a pioneering guide to a diverse, multicultural world. Third and finally, linking its interests in pedagogy and in ideas, women's studies offers a blueprint for humane excellence in educational institutions. It calls for educational systems that serve the learner, not the reverse. Doing so, they will provide access to their resources to anyone who is able to benefit from them. They are fair and democratic in governance. Their social organization will permit learners to balance academic, work, and family life. A graduate student running a lab experiment at night, a secretary who is a single mother-they and others will have access to help with child care. Humane educational institutions also prize freedom. Not only must learners be able to think freely. They must be free from sexual and racial harassment, free from economic circumstances so grinding that learning becomes impossible. Women's studies continues to refine this blueprint because of its profound belief that education is much more than a matter of picking up credentials or going to keggers. Education provides the material, psychological, and intellectual skills for living. It will give a Hmong refugee woman, for example, the ability to gain economic security and independence from male domination (Lee 1998). My simple dream is that the American research university, which once modelled itself on the German research university, will now model itself on women's studies as well. Before gender traditionalists flee before me,

24


as if I were the head of the Medusa, let me assure them that I am not hallucinating that every chemistry class will begin by reciting an Emily Dickinson poem or a chapter of Toni Morrison-salutary though that might be. My dream, however, does insist that every chemistry department work with primary and secondary schools to make sure that girls as well as boys learn the joys and possibilities of science. Interweaving the research university and women's studies, the research university ofmy dream would articulate a revivified set ofcore values. This is far more than a rhetorical exercise or some boilerplate for the catalogue. For the research university will not survive unless it articulates values that both appeal to new learners and distinguish it from the competition from other providers that will inexorably grow. I have often wondered why a university's statement of values can be so boring-to people who write about universities, live in them, read about them, or pay for them. In part, this is our fault, for we fail to convey the passion for ideas that is a psychic force behind our work, our ardent devotion to what was once baldly called "the life of the mind," and the reasons why we selected this life. For many of us, especially in the humanities, the possibility of a fat paycheck was not among our motives. Paradoxically, we freely made this choice out of a deep compulsion and overwhelming desire to dwell with ideas. The beauty of mathematics drew some of us, the narratives and blanknesses of history others, the structure of the atom still others, the sharp beauty of a poem still others, the meanings of an alien culture still others. No matter what our individual situation, we lovedyes, loved-the cauldrons of consciousness, the works and grandeur of the intellect. We loved to learn the Whole oflove (to paraphrase an Emily Dickinson poem)-the alphabet, the words. Not surprisingly, some of the most eloquent expressions of a desire for learning have emanated from people relegated to the outer precincts, attics, and broom closets of the research university. What, then, are the values that my dream research university will act upon? 3 The first is for the research university to serve, as it traditionally has, as an advocate for advanced inquiry and creativity, for the mind and imagination going at full tilt. Our degrees must not represent the mechanical completion of a check list of courses, seminars, exams, and papers, but the completion of one vital, fertile, restless encounter with ideas and knowledge. Obviously, because they are research degrees, they signify mastery ofa field, the well-honed capacity to understand and study an important area of


25

natural or human life. Normally, academic disciplines define a field. However, even the most internally coherent and stable of fields are shifting, changing, and fluid. As a result, mastery of a field demands the ability to live with the instability of mastery and to recognize that established paradigms within fields change. Curiosity must accompany competency. For the mind is pluripotent, capable of encountering and generating many ideas. 4 The more ideas a leamer encounters, the less stable the more rigid schemata of the mind become. Moreover, established borders among fields blur, shift, become reconfigured. Normally, interdisciplinary work-like that ofwomen's studies-defines this process of productive blurring, shifting, and reconfiguration. Crucially, the interdisciplinary approach is far more than having disciplines within the arts and sciences shake hands with each other. The handshake must go on among the arts and sciences and the professional schools as well. Recently I have been team-teaching a course in "Law and Literature" with a New York University Law School colleague. The experience provided a series offabulous jolts to my ideas about reading and writing. The second value is teaching and teaching how to teach what we know and what we are discovering. In a dream research university, teaching is not a command-and-control process in which professors pass information down to graduate students who will pass it down to undergraduates either as teaching assistants or, in the future, as faculty members. To be sure, such a chain of dissemination does exist. JustifYing it is the belief, generally correct, that professors know more than graduate students who, in tum, know more than undergraduates. However, we must supplement the pedagogy of dissemination, the passing down of knowledge, with the pedagogy of mentoring, the nurturing of the student's mind and career. The speech patterns of mentoring are those of conversation, not those of the lecture (or diatribe) with a grateful, trembling auditor. Teachers should be able to speak to many audiences inside and out ofthe research university. Thus, in my dream research university, every tenure-track and tenured faculty member must converse about ideas at least once every year with a nonacademic group that will, in turn, talk back to him or her. Third, a dream research university articulates and embodies an ethic of learning and teaching. Obviously, each field has a set of protocols that codify appropriate professional behavior within that field, but there should be an ethical code that all teachers and students must respect. My outline of this code should surprise no-one. It insists upon honesty, fairness, integrity, freedom of inquiry, and collegiality, that set of communal

26


relationships between cronyism and friendship. Recently, the best codes have expanded to include freedom from bullying, denigration, and racial and sexual harassment. Even the most brilliant among us should not exploit, use, and abuse colleagues and students. This expansion ofethical codes both reflects and encourages the fourth value of my dream research university: the continued creation of a cosmopolitan meritocracy. In a meritocracy, what matters is the activity beneath the skull-not the pigmentation of the skin that covers the skull, not the ratios of Xs to Ys among the chromosomes, not the nationality of the hand that holds out a passport at the U.S. border. To be sure, William James taught W.E.B. DuBois and Gertrude Stein at Harvard, both of whom praised him as a teacher, but James' Harvard was not a meritocracy. Although the critique of women's studies of racial and gender arrangements in the research university has been legitimate, one of the most admirable features of the American research university during the 20thcentury has been its effort to dilute and eradicate its religious, racial, and gender prejudices. Despite the blind claims that the United States is now colorblind, these slow, laborious, gallant, morally necessary efforts to further the talents of all of us are still necessary. If meritocracy encourages individual talent, cosmopolitanism then asks individuals to imagine themselves as citizens as well. However, we have dual citizenship, in a locality and in the world at large. As Martha Nussbaum writes, "Each of us dwells.. .in two communities-the local community of our birth, and the community of human argument and aspiration that 'is truly great and truly common.' It is the latter community that is, most fundamentally, the source of our moral and social obligations" (Nussbaum 1997). A particular research university can be our locality, but we must move out from there to exemplify a human and global community. We will not be able to achieve cosmopolitanism if our ideas about The Other and others are false, or limited. After reading Valian, I concluded that research universities should institute "Schematic Workshops" in which people would discover, in apperceptive acts, what debilitating schemata they used-about gender, about race, about nationality-to organize and control their realities. Fifth and finally, a dream research university will balance the human connections that have been the heart of traditional learning and teaching with the new technologies ofinformation. Despite the fact that I am cybernetically challenged, I am no Luddite. The new technologies ofinformation are transforming scholarship, research, and teaching for the better. I am


27

tantalized by the promise of what else we might do. What, for example, if the "Law and Literature" class I now team-teach could be conducted simultaneously by direct broadcast satellite with a group in England or Scandinavia or Poland or South Africa-as long as our time wnes were sufficiently proximate. However, I fear the emergence of the exclusively on-line classroom, especially if it is conducted for profit by one of the proliferating corporate educational groups. Such classrooms can lack flesh, can lack blood, can lack spirit, do lack the stimulus and correctives of face-toface encounters. One can imagine Socrates and his students, or Sappho and her students, or William James and his students, communicating bye-mail without doing violence to our notion of their teaching. With a giggle or two, one can imagine a home page for Socrates, Sappho, or William James. However, one cannot imagine Socrates or Sappho or William James wholly on-line without doing violence to our notion of the soul-to-soul energies of their instruction. Two recent experiences have exacerbated my anxiety. In Spring, 1998, the Library ofAmerica published two volumes ofthe writings of Gertrude Stein that I co-edited. The interest in Stein is due in part to the work of feminist critics and women's studies. In order to publicize the volumes, I accepted an invitation from Compuserve to participate in chat about Gertrude Stein on its Literary Page for a couple of months. There were fewer entries on the Gertrude Stein message board than my ego would have preferred, but the wounding of my ego is not the source of my mental perturbations. In praise of my on-line conversations about Stein, let me say that they were global in scope, replete with voices that seemed genuinely interested in Stein and literature, and often informative. I learned something from a filmmaker who had shot some footage in an apartment Stein had shared with Alice B. Toklas in Paris. However, these conversations were also bloated with opinions and misinformation, and it was impossible to tell if opinions were being deepened and misinformation being erased. The experience also reminded me of the need to distinguish among information, knowledge, and wisdom. Information is data, a trickle of data, a stream of data, an avalanche of data. Knowledge distinguishes among data to determine their integrity and then fits them together into significant, deep, broad patterns. In his book about the university, which is notable for its unfortunately too traditional combination of intellectual strength and silence about women, Jaroslav Pelikan argues that the business of the research university is knowledge, not wisdom. Wisdom does

28


exist; it is understanding the why of things (Pelikan 1992:55), which I take to mean the place and proportionality of things. The research university may have wise people wandering about, Pelikan suggests, but it cannot guarantee that it will as an institution provide wisdom. I agree that wisdom may be found in many places outside of the research university-in a blues song, a proverb, even in a scrap of text on a website. Nor do I believe that the research university can guarantee that everything it does will be wise or even, as my experience in women's studies has shown, knowledgeable. It should, however, provide access to as many knowledgeable voices as possible and to as many sources of wisdom as possible. In brief, it should be at once a forum and a repository. Then, in Autumn 1998, I read an article in my hometown paper, The New York Times, with this headline: "A New Way to Read the Law at Home." The story then reported that Kaplan Educational Centers, a Washington Post Company subsidiary, had opened the Concord University School of Law "in which students will take all of their courses over the Internet." For those of us who care about access to education, one potential strength ofConcord U. is that it seems designed for "people whose careers, family obligations or geographic locations make it hard for them to attend traditional law schools." Moreover, Concord is less expensive than other law schools. "The cost, $4,200 a year for a fouryear law degree program, will be far below the cost at most private universities and even less than at many public ones" (Arenson 1998). Still, one must wonder skeptically about the human connections between teacher and students and among students. Will these classrooms be anything more than a tyrannical machine for punching out credits and credentials of ultimately uncertain worth? Because on-line classrooms promise comparatively cheap, convenient courses, I predict that they will infiltrate even the research university more and more aggressively, at first in the professions and then in the arts and sciences. What will traditional education be seen to offer in this newly competitive environment? Why will our excellence be sought after? One reason will be our facilities. Another will be the nature of our communities, of which facilities are a material part. Our communities, however, will continue to exert their attraction only if they are financially accessible and if they offer the opportunity to learn with humane excellence. I have suggested that we can achieve humane excellence in a dream research university if we serve the life of the mind and imagination


29

rationally and passionately; if we learn and teach how to teach; if we practice an ethics of learning and teaching; if we create and sustain a cosmopolitan meritocracy; and if we deploy the new technologies of information in ways that neither romanticize them nor send us fleeing like scaredy-cats to the pencil shelf in Staples. Is there a metaphor that might capture my dream research university? As James' octopus did his nightmare Ph.D.? Let me offer this: the hub. The hub is the solid, central part of a wheel. So the research university can unite several spokes and sites of inquiry. In a contemporary extension of meaning, a hub is a center of airplane flights. So the research university should be a center of flights of inquiry and the imaginationin the human and natural worlds. Unfortunately, the hub airport is now a shopping mall as well, offering everything from apples to stuffed zebras to local delicacies. lfit's Vidalia onions, it must be Atlanta. However, the research university can offer a mall of data, ideas and voices instead of things. Some may fear that this will lead to a hubbub, a confusion, but if the task of the research university is knowledge, then its faculty and students can spin significant patterns from these ideas and voices. As it does so, like Edwin Powell Hubble (1889-53) providing observational evidence that supports a theory of the expanding universe, the research university will then find evidence to support a theory that the universe of knowledge must expand. However, we must avoid hubris, the arrogant conviction within the research university that it is omniscient. Yet both the research university and women's studies have shown that we can sometimes glimpse and even grasp wisdom. My dream is that they will move together towards deeper wisdom, more truths, and, if not towards more love, at least towards that mutuality that is the alphabet of respect.

NOTES 1. An expanded version of this essay, which includes some of the same materials, is "Myths of Transformation: Realities of Change," PMLA 115 (October 2000):1142-1153. 2. Boxer is a recent history of women's studies in the United States. 3. I adapt these passages from my essay, "The Octopus and Excellence," published as an Occasional Paper by the Council on Graduate Schools. 4. A pluripotent stem cell can "form many body tissues." (Wade, F2).


30

REFERENCES Arenson, Karen W. 1998. A new way to read the law at home. The New YOrk Times, September 20, WI( 3. Aristotle. 1947. Metaphysics. In Introduction to Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon. New York: The Modern Library. Boxer, Marilyn Jacoby. 1998. When women ask the questions: Creating women)s studies in America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, The. 1998. Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America)s research universities. New York: State University of New York at Stony Brook. Brand, Myles. 1998. Research universities in transition. Paper prepared for Colloquium on Postbaccalaureate Futures, Aspen Institute, November 1-3. James, William. 1987. The Ph.D. octopus. In William James: Writings 1902-1910, ed. Bruce Kuklick. New York: Library ofAmerica. Kolodny, Annette. 1998. Failing the future: A dean looks at higher education in the twenty-first century. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Lee, Stacey J. 1998. The road to college: Hmong American women's pursuit of higher education. In Minding Women: Reshaping the Educational Realm, ed. Christine A. Woyshner and Holly S. Gelfond. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Educational Review, Reprint Series No. 30. Nussbaum, Martha C. 1997. Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1992. The idea ofthe university: A reexamination. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wade, Nicholas. 1998. Primordial Cells Fuel Debate on Ethics. The New YOrk Times, November 10, FI-2.

Chapter Two

The Current Status of Women in Research Universities Lilli S. Hornig

In this chapter we establish a baseline of the position of women faculty at the turn of the millennium, a mark against which future change can be measured. To set this in its proper context we also look back, to the extent possible, at the situation in 1970, just as efforts to increase the participation of women began. It is not only the proportion of women that is of interest, but also their varying distribution among institutions and departments, whether the conditions of their work settings and environments are supportive or constraining, and how these factors have changed in the last three decades. No very dear starting point for such an analysis exists. Data on women faculty were not of general interest before 1970, when approximately 23 percent offaculty across all postsecondary institutions were women (Vetter and Babco 1997:151), and no database on this topic exists for the research universities. Reliable data on women's distribution across fields and departments are also scarce or nonexistent. However, a number of reports from leading universities concerning the status of women were compiled around 1970, in response to the impending requirement for affirmative action plans, by newly appointed ad hoc or sometimes statutory committees on the status of women. These reports were to serve as the basis for calculating "goals"-the number of women or minorities that would have to be added to academic units in order to match their availability-and "timetables" for attaining the specified goals. Note that Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities Edited by Hornig, K1uwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2003

31

32


universities were expected to recruit women or minorities only at the levels of competence that were traditional for each institution, not to lower their standards in any way, and that the timetables were flexible.

DATA SOURCES The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) publishes an annual report on the economic status of the profession which also reports on numbers and proportions of women, and their salary differences from men, at each regular academic rank in over 1800 universities and colleges. These data serve as our source ofthe proportions ofwomen faculty at the three regular ranks (although instructors are also included in the tabulations). Although the published tables also include the proportion of each rank that is tenured, this unfortunately does not yield unequivocal data by gender, and a summary table (Academe, March-April 2000:20) does not separate data on tenure for research universities only. We include data for 2000 and comparisons with 1988 and 1998 figures to gauge the rate of change. In an effort to also understand better the distribution of women across departments, we asked the affirmative action officers at the RU I institutions to send us their most recent affirmative action reports, assuming that these would be using a fairly standard format and thus be at least roughly comparable across the institutions. This approach was only partially successful. Only 40 of the 88 universities responded by sending the reports, which are public documents, and they used many different formats. Although we were able to sort out some information about departmental or divisional distributions, these were often not comparable among universities because of differing organization. To gain a better understanding of the general climates and attitudes toward the recruitment, retention, and promotion of women in various universities, we also sent a letter survey to the chief academic officers of the 88 institutions. The questions we asked were the following: 1. What steps has your institution taken to insure that no gender bias enters into recruitment, appointment, promotion, and tenure decisions? Do you feel they have been successful? If not, where have they failed? 2. What, ifany, incentives exist for departments to increase the numbers of women faculty? Are set-aside funds available to take advantage of targets of opportunity in recruitment and hiring? Do you feel that such strategies have been effective?


33

3. If the numbers of women faculty at your institution remain relatively small, to what do you ascribe this problem? 4. Does your institution facilitate access to daycare? Do you encourage the hiring/tenucing ofcouples? Are there other "family-friendly" policies in place, such as provision for extending probationary periods for young parents, or for assistance with caring for ill or elderly family members? 5. Which of the initiatives you have taken do you consider most successful? Which least? 6. If increasing the proportions of women faculty is a priority at your institution, how is this conveyed to departments? What mechanisms exist for insuring that the policies are carried out? 7. Is there a standing committee on women faculty in your institution? What is its charge, and how often does it report? After one reminder mailing, answers to this set of questions were received from only 20 universities, about 23 percent of the total. It is probably fair to assume that non-responding institutions had relatively low interest in these issues.

RESULTS A. PROPORTIONS OF WOMEN FACULTY

A sampling of reports on the status of women produced in the early 1970s, while in no way comprehensive, does serve as an indication of the low starting point from which we can assess changes over the last three decades. The institutions mentioned here are representative of the top research universities at that period as well as currently. In 1971 the AAUP Committee on the Status of Women (Indiana 1971:8) studied the position ofwomen at Indiana University, Bloomington Campus, and reported a total of 5.2 percent women full professors, 8.8 percent associate professors, 14.3 percent assistant professors, and 26.3 percent instructors, for an overall total of 10.6 percent. Out of 43 schools and divisions, 16 had no women at any level (Ibid., Table 2). Also in 1971, a report from the Committee on the Status ofProfessional Women at Yale (Yale 1971) found that women were 0.5 percent of full professors, 1.3 percent of associate professors, and 8.2 percent of assistant professors; including the 12.5 percent ofinstructors, the total faculty of 469 had 19 women, or 4 percent. The departments of chemistry, political science, and sociology had no women at any rank.

34


A 1972 report from UCLA (Chancellor's Advisory Committee 1972:3) found that women made up a total of 7 percent of all faculty in what was termed the Regular Professorial Series, and only 4.5 percent of full professors. The authors pointed out that these proportions exaggerate the representation of women overall because only four departments (Nursing, Dance, Public Health, and Physical Education) accounted for one-third of all women faculty. They further investigated the historical record at UCLA, finding that in 1940-41 women had been 12 percent of the regular faculty. Ten years later they were 13 percent of full professors, 10 percent of associate professors, and 12 percent of all tenured faculty, contrasted with 5 percent in 1972. The University ofCalifornia (UC 1972) studied the position ofwomen faculty at three ofits graduate campuses-Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Davis. At Berkeley the study found 48 women, 4 percent of 1,214 regular faculty at the rank of instructor or higher (p.l0). Two years after the previous study, UCLA had a total of 11 percent women faculty including both regular ranks and instructors, lecturers and associates. UC-Davis counted 88 women, 8 percent of the total including the 45 who were lecturers. The remaining 43 comprised 2.5 percent of professors, 6.6 percent of associate professors, and 7.4 percent of assistant professors. The Task Force on Women of the University of Tennessee reported to the Chancellor (U-TN 1972:72) that women were 8.2 percent of professors, 9.6 percent of associate professors, 21.7 percent of assistant professors, and 52.2 percent of instructors. Women were 13.6 percent of the total at the three upper ranks. Cornell's ad hoc Trustee Committee on the Status ofWomen (Cornell 1974:4) reponed that there were no women out ofa total 1,474 persons at the three professorial ranks, or 7.5 percent, but that one half of these women were in the College of Human Ecology. In descending rank order, women were 3 percent, 10.5 percent, and 12 percent of the three ranks. A somewhat later study from the University of Minnesota (U-MN 1978:5) prepared while the university was being sued for sex discrimination-a suit which eventually cost them a reputed $10 million-listed a total of 13.5 percent women at the three professorial ranks in 1977, a reduction from the 15.4 percent that had been present in 1951. The College of Technology had only 1.6 percent women in 1977. All of these universities, and all other RU Is, have changed markedly since then, as the data in Table 1 demonstrate. However, the changes have been uneven in several ways. By 1988 all but three of the universities


35

(CalTech, Georgia Tech, and MIT) had 10 percent or more total women faculty, and by 2000 the great majority were well above 20 percent. The range of these figures was considerable, from 4.1 percent to over 28 percent in 1988 and from 10.7 percent to 34.3 percent in 2000, with CalTech and Vrrginia Commonwealth University being the low and high extremes, respectively, in both years. Some institutions showed growth spurts in one time interval but lagged in another, probably reflecting such factors as age distributions of faculty or expansion in some fields. Overall the regular faculties did not grow much, and shrank in some universities, a symptom of steady-state policies and the ever-increasing use of temporary, part-time, and adjunct faculty. Comparing the results for 2000 with the reports of the '70s gives us a rough idea of the rates of increase over almost thirty years, and the results are not very impressive. The annual increases amount to about 0.5 percentage points in most of these institutions over the entire period. Table 1 also includes the average annual growth (or loss) in the proportion ofwomen for the two intervals, 1988-98 and 1998-2000. Again, the results are widely scattered, from a low of zero at the University of Alabama to 1.53 points at the University of New Mexico in the first interval, and from -4.7 at Yale to 6.45 at Ohio State in the second. The average proportion of women has grown by over 60 percent in twelve years, and the average annual increase is 0.6 to 0.7 percentage points. The rank distributions of women and men faculty, also obtainable from the AAUP tables and detailed in Table 2, paint a more complex picture. The ranks of full professors in 1988 are sparsely populated by women, with fewer than one-fifth of the institutions exceeding 10 percent; they average 7.9 percent. At the associate professor rank women held about one fifth of positions, on average, and they were almost one third of assistant professors. Note, however, that the range of these proportions is again considerable: in 1988 CalTech had only 1.2 percent women full professors while at the other extreme New York University had 15.9 percent. By 2000 women's share of full professorships had nearly doubled, to an average of 14.4 percent, associate professorships increased by 50 percent, and assistant professorships by 29 percent. Again, there was a wide spread, from a low of 5.7 percent women full professors at Georgia Tech to a high of 23.1 percent at Georgetown. Similarly, women associate professors were 15.8 percent at Georgia Tech and 43.4 percent at Johns Hopkins, while for assistant professors the range was from 23.9 percent, again at Georgia Tech, to 57.8 percent at

36


Virginia Commonwealth University. It is still the case that most of the men are full professors while the majority of women remain assistant professors. Tenure

The information supplied in affirmative action reports often includes tenure status only as consolidated figures for tenure and tenure-track personnel. These do not furnish much insight for two reasons: 1) we do not know how they break down between tenure and tenure-track, and 2) perhaps more significantly, some top private institutions do not have a tenure track in the sense it is understood in public systems. In the latter, there are usually well defined criteria for promotion to tenure after a set probationary period; it is generally assumed that a tenure review will end favorably, absent any explicit failures to meet expectations. In many other universities, however, the practice is to search nationally or internationally for the best possible person who can be recruited, a search in which existing junior faculty may also be candidates. In the past this resulted only occasionally in granting tenure to junior faculty already in place, although in recent years these institutions have generally relaxed this rule, primarily because they found that lacking the expectation of tenure, many outstanding people chose to seek junior appointments elsewhere. Both Harvard and Yale have recently been promoting junior faculty at much higher rates than in the past. Due in large part to the great diversity among universities even in this relatively small segment, we were unable to extract any meaningful national data on tenure from the affirmative action reports. This is the case because there are great differences in size, mission, and types of units or divisions among institutions. For example, flagship state universities and other land grant campuses usually have schools of nursing, home economics, library science, and education, all heavily skewed toward women, and schools of engineering, technology, agriculture, and other traditionally maledominated fields. Such divisions may be absent or very small in other universities, and in any case the balance among them may fluctuate widely. It should be noted that equal-opportunity regulations take account of this diversity by allowing each institution to work out its own goals and timetables and assess its own performance, subject to federal review. A few illustrative examples from affirmative action reports will serve to show the range ofdata presented. UC-Berkeley, for instance, reported in 1997 on a retrospective look at its women faculty, finding that the


37

proportion of tenured posts held by women had grown from 4.9 percent in 1976 to 20.2 percent in 1997, while the proportion of "ladder" posts went from 22.4 percent to 38.4 percent. In another summary Cornell reported an increase in new tenure appointments of women from 14.1 percent (1993) to 16.0 percent (1997). At MIT the tenure fraction rose from 9.7 percent in 1996 to 11.2 percent in 1997. Between 1990 and 1995 at the University of Illinois (Chicago) women's share increased from 18.6 percent to 22.7 percent of combined tenured and tenure-track positions in the college of arts and sciences, and from 35.1 percent to 46.5 percent in the college of education. At the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) from 1992 to 1996 the increase for women in combined tenure and tenure-track appointments was from 21.3 to 23.6 percent. Table 3 shows the breakdowns for tenure, tenure-track, and off-track positions for women, to the extent they could be identified from the affirmative action reports we received. Note that the figures are for three different years and are grouped accordingly.

Field Distributions An issue of considerable interest is how the actual proportions of women faculty in various fields are related to their presence in the appropriate doctoral pool, i.e. in that pool as it existed in a relevant time period. For example, reaching full professor status is generally taken to require ten to twelve years post-Ph.D. whereas assistant professors are drawn from a recent Ph.D. pool; "recent" differs from one field to another, depending on the need for one or more years ofpostdoctoral fellowship experience. So-called "availability" estimates are based on the Doctoral Records File of the National Academy of Sciences; academic departments are expected to use these data to determine what the expected availability of female or minority candidates is for a given position. Some of the affirmative action reports we examined contain comparisons ofactual hiring with availabilty. Representative examples are listed in Table 4. There is no single case where the actual proportions of female faculty even approach the institutions' own availability figures. As Duke University's report for 1996 (p. 17) states, "University hiring has lagged behind availability of women in the workforce for years; as availability continues to increase each year, this trend has continued." The differences between actual proportions and availability are very large in chemistry and math, somewhat less so in biology and social sciences, and smallest in English. The discrepancy in

38


chemistry has persisted nearly unchanged since the 1970s; chemistry is much the largest field in the physical sciences for women, annually producing about as many women Ph.D.s as English and currently amounting to over 30 percent of new doctorates.

Salaries Salary differences between male and faculty have existed for many years, as they have in other professions (Ahern and Scott 1981:76; NAS 1983:4.21; Hornig and Ekstrom 1984:188). That situation remains unchanged, although the differences have declined somewhat. Faculty women's salaries by rank, as a percentage of men's, are listed in Table 5. Out of over 770 cases included there (three ranks for each institution for each of three different years) there are six instances of equal salaries: full professors at Georgetown in 1988, associate professors at Stanford in 1988, Georgetown in 1998, and Berkeley in 2000, and assistant professors at Cornell (statutory colleges) in 1988 and CalTech in 2000. Note that there are also four cases of women having higher salaries than men, at Georgetown for associate professors in 1988, at Duke in 1988 and Oregon State in 2000 for full professors, and at Temple in 2000 for assistant professors. B. SURVEY QUESTIONS

As noted above, the seven questions we asked in letters addressed to presidents and chancellors received replies from fewer than one quarter of the universities, with answers ranging from perfunctory to comprehensive and thoughtful. Perhaps significantly, in view of its subsequent admission of problems concerning the treatment of senior women faculty (see Introduction, this volume), MIT responded with the simple statement that "faculty are asked to recognize and avoid gender bias," surely the zenith of faith in faculty judgment in this area. Most universities were less sanguine, however. A perceptive observer at the University of Washington wrote, "It is not possible to insure that no bias enters into the employment process." That may indeed be the case, but many institutions are trying in many ways to minimize the possibility. There is general agreement that effective steps can be taken to foster fairness in faculty employment decisions. The following are steps that the responding institutions generally agreed on: 1. Frequent updating and dissemination to departments of availability data on women scholars in their respective fields;


39

2. Continuous monitoring of search design and execution; 3. Monitoring of results, continuous evaluation of whether goals are met, and feedback to departments; 4. Insuring inclusion of women on all search and promotion committees; if none are available in the department or institution they are recruited from outside; 5. Where external referees are customary, they must include women; 6. Accountability for results is essential; success or failure in meeting established goals must be considered in performance reviews; 7. Integration of diversity goals into institutional planning processes and line decision-making; and 8. Responding universities emphasize that the most important ingredient is effective high level leadership to set clear expectations for bias-free recruitment and promotion. Among explicit policies that foster recruitment and retention of women, provisions for extending the tenure clock and for family leave are widespread, although several institutions noted that they were used less than expected and speculated that some disadvantage was believed attached to their use. A widely favored tool for fostering faculty diversity is a "target of opportunity" program by which special funds are set aside for recruiting outstanding women or minorities who might become available even though no regular faculty line is open. University of California campuses that had such programs in the past regretted having had to end them, in accord with new state law. The University of Washington's program is noteworthy for its flexibility and comprehensiveness. It is not limited to women and minorities. It provides funding in anticipation of a later vacancy (as do several other programs), for summer or other special support needs, to meet competitive offers to existing faculty, and to help with placement of partners. The institutions that have such programs in place uniformly regard them as highly successful tools. A few mentioned having had to end them due to budgetary constraints, and several also noted that they were used more often for minorities than for women. Most of the responding universities are concerned about the placement problem for spouses or partners, especially if they have failed to recruit a faculty member they wanted who came with an academic partner, or have lost a star whose spouse could not be accommodated. Most of the institutions that singled out this issue are in locations without other suitable universities that might broaden the possibilities. Accommodations

40


include use of bridge funds until line positions become available, help with placement elsewhere, counselling, and some moral support and general encouragement.

DISCUSSION What do all the numbers mean, and how do they relate to the answers to the survey questions? First, we note that there seemed to be no particular correlation between response rates to our requests for information and "good" or "bad" statistics. Judging by brief notes attached to reports sent to us, the differences mostly had to do with whether a particular affirmative action officer or a president or provost was interested in the issues. Beyond that, what is striking about the results is that despite the many differences in the universities represented-differences in mission, structure, fields included, size, population base, and location-the figures overall show remarkable consistency. This fact suggests, but certainly does not prove, that the problems ofsimply gaining access for women are no longer primarily structural. The increases in the total proportion of women faculty have slowed: although the average annual percentage point gain remains essentially constant, this means, of course, that the rate of increase is declining steadily, from about 4 percent per year around 1990 to about half that by 2000. Note, however, that this represents a characteristic growth curve, rapid near the beginning and slowing as it approaches an end point. In any case, individual institutions vary enormously in this respect; many that were slow to begin adding women faculty made up the difference later, and many that had larger proportions at the start either slowed the pace later or even reversed it quite drastically, like Yale and Georgetown. The net effects ofthese changes become evident in Table 2, where we find that between 1988 and 2000 the proportion of women full professors has almost doubled, on average, while that of assistant professors is up nearly one-third, and now matches quite precisely the fraction of new women doctorates in the mid-'90s, about 40 percent. Since the 1970s the gains are quite encouraging. Again, variations among institutions are very large, however. Individual universities need to review their own figures to determine not just how well or badly they are doing compared to the average, but where within their system major departures from the norm are occurring. Tenure status may be one of the factors to examine. The proportion of women with tenure continues to lag a long way behind men; at one


41

institution after another, many more men hold full professorships than other ranks, while most of the female faculty are assistant professors. In part, of course, that is a result of women's relatively late entry into the field, although there is also plentiful evidence that women are promoted more slowly. A few of these universities acknowledge this problem in their reports. (See Chapter Six for an extended analysis.) Another factor that emerges is departmental distributions compared to availability (Table 4). In the humanities, especially in languages and literature, women remain underrepresented, generally comprising about one-half of the available pool. The comparison is slightly better in social sciences, but very much worse in natural and especially physical sciences and math, where only about one-third of available women are appointed. Since very few women hold full professorships in the latter fields it is likely that the situation is actually worse than the numbers suggest, because there have been more hiring opportunities in the sciences than in the humanities, and the proportion of women in the pool of recent doctorates is well above that in the overall pool. The suggestion that emerges is that far from breaking down outmoded stereotypes, universities are actually reinforcing them in their faculties. By not having representative numbers of women science faculty, they support the increasingly false perception that women aren't scientists-surely not the message they want consciously to transmit to their students. Another message implicit in the numbers is that women students are in a sense not getting the same education as men. The ratio of male students to male faculty varies from about 4:1 in the Ivy League to about 12:1 in large public universities; for women the corresponding figures are 11:1 and 40:1. Tens of thousands of women graduate each year without ever having had a woman professor, and that has ramifications for mentoring, role models, and messages conveyed about the suitability of academic careers for women. If the gender ratios were reversed, would it be acceptable? Despite their apparent precision, the data on salaries are somewhat ambiguous. Confounding factors include field distributions, since salaries in the sciences are generally higher and there are proportionately fewer women in these fields, and age in rank, because at each rank women as a group are the more recent entrants and therefore paid less, legitimately. However, the most striking fact about salaries is that on average the differential between men and women has remained essentially unchanged for more than a decade. In fact, it has remained that way for over half

42


a century (Ahern and Scott 1981:82). Except for one four-year interval, 1970-74, these authors consistently found the largest salary differences in chemistry, with biological sciences next highest. The rank with the largest inequity remains full professor, and the difference that is hardest to explain away is at the entry level, assistant professor, where one must assume that appointees have very similar qualifications. This is an area that institutions should review very carefully. Salary inequities are not merely a current disadvantage to women; perhaps their most deleterious effect shows up at retirement. Salary issues are treated in greater detail by Long (this volume). A broad-gauge overview of the situation suggests strongly that this growth in numbers would not have taken place without the impetus provided by the civil rights laws. However, the fact that change at higher ranks has been disappointing, and the essentially unchanging salary differentials, also corroborate what is known about lack of enforcement of the regulations beyond the entry level (see Introduction, this volume). However, it is not at all clear that more stringent enforcement is the best answer to creating an academic environment that is more supportive of achievement by women. Enforcement efforts generate opposition which is likely to exacerbate existing problems rather than solve them. Rather, the responses to our questions as well as the public acknowledgment by MIT and some of its sister institutions of not having treated senior women faculty equitably argue strongly for a more individualized, intrainstitutional approach. The factors involved in the differential treatment of women faculty are very hard to quantify, and again vary not just from one university to another but also from department to department and over time. They are probably most damaging in the sciences, where problems such as research funding, facilities, and space assignments are likely to affect both satisfaction and productivity. An exemplary approach to dealing with these issues is described by Fried (this volume). Central to such an approach is the fact that the process ofundertaking it itself sensitizes faculty and administrators to the "climate" issues that contribute to women's disadvantage. These include matters such as scheduling meetings at times convenient to all participants, inclusion of women in faculty decision-making, informal as well as formal, and better information flow. In particular, the process must include careful review of how colleagues evaluate women candidates for appointments and promotions. In fields where it is possible to have anonymous reviews, i.e. where the track record does not necessarily identify an individual, these should be required. Such practices have been the norm in Modern Language


43

Association publications for many years, and were found to improve acceptance of women's works markedly. Valian (1998, Ch. 7) offers an extended discussion of the many factors that differentiate evaluations of women's scholarly work from men's and downgrade women's achievements simply because they are women. An interesting statistical corroboration of this effect comes from data on science and engineering faculty disaggregated by institutional type. Among a total of almost 300,000 faculty members, 29 percent of the men are in a research university, but that opportunity comes to only 17 percent of similarly qualified women (Vetter and Babco 1997:154). To insure continued growth in opportunities and equality for women faculty, universities will have to develop ways to cope with deep-rooted prejudices. TABLES Table 1

PERCENT WOMEN TOTAL FACULTY, RESEARCH I UNIVERSITIES, 1988, 1998, and 2000 (Nonmedical instructional faculty, alphabetically by state, 3 professorial ranks)

Institution

1988

1998

2000

Annual Change 1988-19981998-2000

U-Alabama AZ State U U-AZ CaiTech Stanford UC-Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles San Diego Santa Barbara USC Colorado State U U-Colorado U-Connecticut Yale Georgetown Howard Florida State U U-Florida V-Miami Emory·

23.8% 19.1 14.9 4.1 10.5 14.2 14.1 15.1 16.7 13.7 13.8 16.5 12.3 14.3 19.0 18.9 24.3 31.1 21.2 14.8 16.9

23.6% 25.2 26.6 10.5 17.3 23.7 26.9 23.9 24.6 18.0 24.2 24.1 20.7 24.2 26.0 33.2 34.8 34.5 28.9 22.5 22.0 31.7

27.1% 30.5 30.0 10.7 19.0 23.1 24.0 24.8 26.1 19.6 24.7 24.6 22.7 25.3 28.2 23.9 28.9 32.0 30.4 23.6 21.6 30.7

0 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.5

1.8 2.4 1.7 0.1 0.9 -0.3 -1.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.6 1.1 -4.7 -3.0 -1.3 0.8 0.6 -0.2 -0.5

44


Table 1 continued Institution

1988

1998

2000

Annual Change 1988-19981998-2000

Georgia Tech V-Georgia V-Hawaii (Manoa) V-Chicago V-Illinois, Chicago V-Illinois, Vrbana Northwestern Indiana V (Bloomington) Purdue V (Main Campus) Iowa State V-Iowa V-Kansas V-Kentucky Louisiana State V Johns Hopkins V-Maryland (College Park) Harvard Mass. Inst. of Technology Tufts V-Mass (Amherst) Michigan State V-Michigan (Ann Arbor) Wayne State V V-Minnesota (Twin Cities) V-Missouri (Columbia) Washington V V-Nebraska Princeton Rutgers New Mexico State V-New Mexico Columbia Cornell (endowed colleges) Cornell (statutory colleges) New York Vniversity Rockefeller Vniversity SVNY Buffalo Stonybrook V of Rochester Duke North Carolina State V-North Carolina Case-Western Reserve Ohio State V V-Cincinnati Oregon State Carnegie-Mellon Penn State

6.4 15.9 22.0 12.7 21.3 12.6 14.6 19.6 14.6 18.8 19.8 15.6 16.6 14.0 18.2 19.5 15.6 9.7 25.8 19.1 20.1 17.8 23.7 22.3 16.9 13.6 20.7 13.1 23.8 16.8 17.8 19.2 11.4 15.9 25.0 14.0 14.8 14.7 20.9 15.2 16.6 22.1 15.4 18.0 24.4 16.8 14.0 12.6

11.9 23.6 28.5 19.1 28.3 19.9 22.1 26.8 21.1 24.9 27.6 23.6 25.1 18.5 25.5 21.1 21.2 14.4 31.6 24.6 24.5 26.0 30.5 25.8 23.2 22.1 20.8 20.2 26.8 30.9 33.1 22.5 18.8 20.7 31.9 17.5 24.6 26.5 22.2 22.3 17.2 27.7 24.7 18.8 33.1 26.7 19.2 22.8

13.5 25.9 29.8 21.0 29.3 21.6 23.8 27.2 21.8 23.5 30.5 24.8 26.1 18.9 27.1 26.5 22.7 15.7 32.9 26.3 26.7 28.6 31.0 27.6 26.1 22.6 21.8 21.8 26.9 30.4 35.0 23.0 21.3 21.7 31.5 22.9 27.5 26.0 21.9 21.8 18.5 29.2 25.0 31.7 34.6 28.9 19.9 31.5

0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.9 0 0.7 0.3 1.4 1.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.4 1.0 1.2

0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.0 0.5 1.0

0.8 1.2

0.7 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 -0.7 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 2.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 0.3 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.3 0.5 -0.2 2.7 2.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 0.7 0.8 0.2 6.5 0.8 1.1 0.4 4.4

45


Table 1 continued 1988

Institution

1998

2000

Annual Change 1988-19981998-2000

Temple U-Pennsylvania U-Pittsburgh Brown U-Tennessee Vanderbilt Texas A & M U-Texas (Austin) U-Utah Utah State U-Virginia Virginia Commonwealth U Virginia Polytech U-Washington West Virginia U U-Wisconsin (Madison)

24.1 16.3 25.6 18.5 19.0 16.1 10.7 18.0 18.2 13.5 14.6 28.4 12.4 17.1 21.5 16.6

32.0 23.0 30.5 23.5 23.7 22.4 15.9 23.8 27.2 25.0 24.9 33.1 18.7 24.5 26.4 26.0

33.3 24.6 31.0 25.1 24.7 24.1 16.9 24.4 28.0 24.9 26.3 34.3 19.8 28.0 27.5 25.9

0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.9

0.7 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.7 0.5 -0.1

Average

17.3

24.3

25.2

0.7

0.6

Source: Compiled from Academe, March-April 1988, Vol. 74, No.2; March-April 1998, Vol. 84, No.2; March-April 2000, Vol. 86, No.2 Note: No data were published for Boston University. UC-San Francisco was omitted from the tabulations because, with heavy concentration in medical sciences, the results were anomalous compared to most universities • Data for Emory were not available in 1988

Table 2 PERCENT OF WOMEN FACULTY BY RANK Research I Universities, 1988, 1998, and 2000 (Nonmedical instructional faculty, alphabetically by state) 1988

Institution

PR· AO·

AI·

PR

1998 AO

AI

PR

U-A1abama Arizona State U U-Arizona CalTech Stanford UC-Berkeley Davis Irvine Los Angeles

11.0 22.6 12.1 18.2 5.8 22.3 1.2 13.5 3.6 20.0 8.5 21.7 7.7 20.9 10.4 18.8 8.9 23.4

35.2 31.7 27.0 8.6 24.3 31.3 23.2 21.7 33.9

14.2 15.7 14.1 5.4 11.4 16.5 19.1 15.9 18.2

25.7 30.9 34.2 18.6 28.7 38.3 35.8 32.1 35.2

47.5 51.2 46.4 31.0 26.7 34.4 40.9 34.4 33.0

13.7 17.5 16.6 6.8 12.4 15.6 17.9 15.8 19.6

2000 AO

AI

28.5 46.4 34.0 53.7 36.5 39.5 26.7 26.1 25.8 32.5 40.5 33.8 37.3 33.3 39.8 30.5 35.5 35.8


46

Table 2 continued 1988

Institution

PR* AO* AI*

7.1 San Diego Santa Barbara 8.6 U-Southern California 9.4 4.2 Colorado State U-Colorado (Boulder) 3.7 U-Connecticut 9.2 Yale 6.2 Georgetown 8.2 Howard 14.1 Florida State 10.2 U-Florida 6.9 U-Miami 9.4 Emory# Georgia Tech 1.3 U-Georgia 4.8 U-Hawaii (Manoa) 8.5 U-Chicago 6.7 U-Illinois (Chicago) 14.9 U-Illinois (Urbana) 5.9 Northwestern 6.5 Indiana U (Bloomington) 8.6 Purdue (Main Campus) 4.3 Iowa State 6.8 U-Iowa 8.6 7.2 U-Kansas U-Kentucky 6.7 Louisiana State U 6.8 Johns Hopkins 8.9 U-Maryland (College Parlc)9.9 Harvard 7.7 Mass. Inst. of Tech. 5.4 Tufts 13.2 U-Mass (Amherst) 9.1 Michigan State 10.2 U-Michigan (Ann Arbor) 8.2 9.2 Wayne State U U-~ (Tmn Gries) 11.0 U-Missouri (Columbia) 5.5 Washington U 7.4 U-Nebraska 6.8 Princeton 6.0 12.3 Rutgers 7.0 New Mexico State U-New Mexico 11.0 Columbia 10.8 Cornell (endowed colleges) 3.9 Cornell (statutory colleges) 6.8 New York University 15.9

23.0 25.0 21.3 28.0 15.6 26.7 14.5 26.8 22.0 28.9 23.8 38.3 28.6 35.9 23.3 41.4 35.1 45.9 28.5 36.5 17.3 24.2 19.6 29.5 8.0 15.4 23.5 21.0 24.6 17.4 22.9 29.3 15.2 21.8 24.2 22.5 22.6 15.0 27.4 22.3 24.0 13.9 30.1 24.7 25.8 23.1 25.1 27.5 18.6 14.8 24.6 26.8 28.5 14.8 24.1 26.9 11.7 16.9 29.9

13.7 30.9 42.7 21.9 38.4 21.6 23.9 32.6 28.3 33.5 37.4 28.9 25.5 21.8 29.9 33.5 27.0 18.6 32.5 37.2 36.5 33.1 45.1 41.1 34.1 23.9 35.1 22.6 37.0 31.7 39.6 30.3 23.9 32.7 38.5

PR 12.8 15.5 12.8 9.4 12.4 18.7 13.7 19.9 21.2 15.5 10.1 14.2 17.0 3.3 12.8 16.3 13.6 16.6 10.1 13.6 17.1 7.7 10.6 13.7 12.1 10.0 9.6 13.2 14.3 14.3 8.1 22.8 16.0 15.6 14.0 11.6 14.6 12.2 11.1 8.3 13.1 16.4 12.9 21.5 16.6 11.0 9.6 21.0

1998

AO

AI

PR

22.2 32.0 30.3 26.9 33.0 28.9 40.2 38.8 40.2 40.6 25.1 23.9 37.5 12.2 25.7 34.4 23.8 29.2 25.7 28.3 30.5 25.6 29.6 37.8 31.1 29.6 21.8 40.7 25.2 31.7 28.2 33.5 30.7 32.5 32.2 31.7 33.9 24.7 23.1 33.5 34.5 32.0 30.7 31.6 31.5 24.0 29.3 36.7

33.0 40.7 38.8 42.9 39.0 38.6 37.3 45.1 45.1 43.9 44.9 38.8 44.8 25.9 42.3 46.1 30.1 45.6 34.8 34.7 40.7 40.0 46.2 44.7 37.1 45.3 34.8 44.4 34.1 34.2 21.1 42.2 46.1 37.3 42.0 54.4 48.4 37.4 41.3 39.0 35.0 45.2 47.5 39.6 29.6 32.8 41.4 50.0

14.4 16.7 14.5 10.4 14.0 19.5 16.2 23.1 18.2 17.0 11.3 13.4 18.0 5.7 14.1 22.1 14.8 17.4 11.5 14.3 19.6 8.9 11.9 14.6 13.3 11.2 9.5 17.2 18.1 15.9 10.3 21.3 17.8 16.6 16.0 14.1 17.9 15.7 14.9 12.8 13.8 16.9 11.7 23.7 17.1 13.0 10.6 22.5

2000

AO

AI

27.5 33.3 31.8 30.8 32.8 30.1 39.4 37.4 37.3 41.6 26.3 24.7 37.7 15.8 29.8 37.9 27.9 31.7 28.0 30.0 31.2 26.5 27.3 41.7 31.3 31.7 22.8 43.4 31.6 41.3 24.3 32.9 32.6 35.1 37.4 31.6 32.9 26.8 23.3 24.0 40.7 33.3 35.5 35.9 30.8 27.0 33.3 38.3

31.0 42.0 37.2 42.9 40.1 41.9 33.3 48.5 47.6 43.4 42.5 38.7 49.6 23.9 43.9 47.4 31.8 45.6 35.7 40.4 38.4 39.2 38.6 44.8 39.5 42.5 34.2 42.8 37.9 29.7 24.7 49.2 45.1 40.0 41.2 52.3 45.5 40.7 38.0 38.7 36.3 41.0 39.3 51.2 31.1 38.7 36.3 45.5

47



PR*

Rockefeller University SUNY-Buffalo 7.2 7.2 Stonybrook U of Rochester 6.8 Duke 6.0 North Carolina State 4.8 U-North Carolina 8.4 Case Western Reserve 5.4 Ohio State U 6.5 U-Cincinnati 10.2 Oregon State 4.8 Carnegie-Mellon 5.7 Penn State 5.0 Temple 15.4 U-Pennsylvania 8.4 U-Pittsburgh 12.2 Brown 6.9 U-Tennessee 7.9 Vanderbilt 5.0 TexasA&M 2.8 U-Texas (Austin) 7.2 U-Utah 6.5 Utah State 2.9 U-Virginia 4.4 Vrgilia ~ U 15.8 Virginia Polytech 3.4 U-Washington 9.7 West Virginia U 8.1 U-Wisconsin (Madison) 9.3 Average 7.9

1988 AO* AI*

PR

1998 AO

AI

PR

2000 AO

AI

24.2 30.4 25.0 40.4 27.5 31.4 42.1 31.0 31.2 41.5 33.7 24.1 24.9 38.7 30.7 48.0 38.9 41.6 25.3 22.2 32.7 37.4 37.5 33.3 41.9 26.6 31.5 40.8 30.7 31.5

5.0 10.4 13.1 11.3 12.9 7.4 18.2 12.2 11.8 17.3 10.9 12.4 10.8 20.7 15.2 15.1 12.5 12.5 13.0 5.2 12.1 14.5 7.2 11.6 13.3 6.6 14.3 10.8 16.2 13.3

23.3 27.7 29.0 29.6 28.0 25.0 33.0 34.0 29.0 32.0 31.2 23.7 23.3 35.3 24.5 28.0 41.6 33.6 21.9 20.4 32.6 31.9 28.0 28.4 32.0 20.6 31.8 25.8 39.7 30.0

23.2 44.2 45.8 32.0 36.9 26.4 44.8 41.3 43.4 44.3 45.7 31.5 41.0 48.2 43.0 53.9 33.3 40.7 41.9 36.2 44.3 44.7 42.8 49.3 55.0 43.3 45.5 50.7 44.1 40.5

8.1 12.5 13.7 12.9 14.0 9.3 20.5 12.3 13.2 19.9 13.5 13.4 11.2 21.8 16.2 17.7 15.9 13.5 14.7 6.4 13.3 16.0 9.4 12.1 15.3 7.3 17.4 11.8 18.4 14.4

17.4 31.5 32.0 30.9 29.8 24.5 35.1 33.1 31.3 32.7 36.1 25.5 27.8 35.5 27.4 29.6 40.0 31.7 24.8 23.9 33.8 33.4 27.0 31.9 32.7 21.9 36.3 27.1 37.5 31.7

37.8 44.3 38.1 32.0 30.9 29.3 45.9 43.6 39.2 45.3 43.1 29.8 40.1 53.6 42.6 49.1 32.9 43.5 42.3 33.1 42.6 42.6 40.8 50.7 57.8 40.9 43.6 49.8 38.6 40.3

8.3 16.0 18.1 21.6 23.1 19.7 31.7 15.4 20.8 27.3 15.9 16.2 11.5 24.4 19.5 23.5 28.6 22.0 22.7 10.4 24.1 23.3 7.2 13.1 25.5 11.8 20.3 23.9 28.2 21.0

Source: Compiled from Academe, March-April 1988, Vol.74, No.2; March-April 1998, Vol. 84 No.2; March-April 2000, Vol. 86, No.2 See Note, Table 1 * PR • Professor; AO • Associate Professor; AI • Assistant Professor # Data for Emory were not available in 1988

Table 3 TENURE STATUS OF WOMEN FACULTY Institution 1995 Berkeley Harvard

Tenured

Tenure-Track

Not on Track

%

%

%

18.5 12.1

39.4 *29.0

28.6


48


Tenured %

Tenure-Track %

Not on Track %

1996 Harvard MIT Stanford U-Georgia U-Washington

12.6 9.7 13.3 18.0 18.3

*31.4

29.5

30.9 43.0 24.1

12.0 47.1 59.2

1997 Case-Western Reserve Cornell (Total) Emory Harvard Howard Rutgers Temple U-North Carolina U-Pittsburgh U-Texas (Austin) Yale

24 16.0 19.2 13.4 28.6 24.7 24.0 21.7 17.7 18.6 11.7

42 38.3 35.0 *32.0 42.2 41.8 50.5 41.5 41.5 42.7 **15.7

50.0 22.9 37.0 28.1 43.5 54.5 50.0 44.2 50.6 40.7

Source: Compiled from the institutions' affirmative action reports for the years indicated * Designated as "ladder" faculty * * Designated as "term" appointments

Table 4 SELECTED DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF WOMEN FACULTY

All Ranks, percentages Institution

Math English Sociology Biology Chemistry Act. Avail. Act. Avail. Act. Avail. Act. Avail. Act. Avail.

1995 U -Ill. (Chicago)

1996 Berkeley Duke U -Massachusetts

14.3

38.3

6.3

23.8

24.7 28.1 22.2

28.9

9.5 13.6 39.2 12.5

15.7 21.4

20.0 8.4

24.8

ILl

5.9 6.5

36.2

56.4

33.3 40.4

36.8 17.0 26.0

51.4

38.9 24.0 42.6

50.0 32.4

58.2

26.6 30.8

26.8

1997 Carnegie Mellon 36.0 UC-Santa Barbara 21.1

38.3

15.0 6.9 21.1

Source: Compiled from institutional affirmative action reports

51.7


49

Table 5 WOMEN'S SALARIES AS PERCENT OF MEN'S, BY RANK Research I Universities-1988, 1998, 2000 1988 PR· AO· A!. Institution 94 96 84 U-Alabama Arizona State Univ. 94 91 95 91 97 93 U-Ariwna Cal Tech 82 100 93 Stanford 93 94 UC-Berkeley 86 Davis 92 95 94 82 92 102 Irvine LosAngeles 90 92 98 SanDiego 82 98 96 90 SantaBarbara 90 96 U-Southern California 83 91 89 Colorado State U 88 93 95 U-Colorado (Boulder) 85 95 98 U-Connecticut 90 93 97 94 90 Yale 95 Georgetown 100 104 93 Howard 99 97 95 91 89 FloridaStateU 87 U-Florida 82 91 89 V-Miami 88 95 92 Emory Georgia Tech 89 89 U-Georgia 94 94 91 U-Hawaii (Manoa) 89 96 96 Northwestern 92 92 90 U-Chicago 87 97 90 U-Illinois (Chicago) 91 87 98 U-Illinois (Urbana) 85 91 90 Indiana U 88 90 88 Purdue 85 90 81 Iowa State U 93 90 84 U-Iowa 89 89 84 U-Kansas 88 93 89 U-Kentucky 92 87 92 Louisiana State U 91 94 91 Johns Hopkins 88 93 90 U-Md. (College Park) 97 93 95 Harvard 88 77 102 MIT 87 88 99 Tufts 92 90 95 U-Mass. (Amherst) 94 96 93 Michigan State U 89 92 93 U-Mich. (Ann Arbor) 85 89 88

PR 95 90 88 83 94 90 90 89 88 89 85 91 90 91 88 92 94 92 91 90 98 85 87 96 92 91 92 92 86 88 82 90 89 91 92

90 97 91 89 89 89 93 92 92

1998 AO 91 93 94 96 98 95 94 98 94 95 94 95 94 94 92 91 100 99 95 95 97 90 94 97 96 95 98 98 95 92 92 88 89 96 95 95 95 97 97 97 99 93 96 89

AI 94 92 97 93 93 98 97 93 94 94 95 96 98 92 94 90 91 96 96 91 93 91 94 94 96 83 93 93 95 93 91 95 93 94 95 93 95 95 92 93 90 91 95 93

PR 92 89 90 87 95 89 91 94 90 89 86 90 90 91 89 92 92 89 94 91 93 83 94 96 90 88 92 92 86 90 84 89 89 90 93 94 85 92 92 94 89 92 93 94

2000 AO A! 92 91 91 95 97 95 91 100 95 93 100 94 94 97 99 97 99 86 94 91 96 99 92 90 96 94 94 92 93 97 91 91 104 84 100 90 92 93 93 89 96 93 90 90 93 96 97 98 95 95 98 84 91 87 95 92 95 92 93 92 94 91 89 95 90 90 97 96 98 92 93 96 99 95 96 88 94 97 96 92 94 96 92 92 98 91 90 96

50


Table 5 continued 1988 Institution PR· AO· A!. Wayne State V 95 101 94 V-Minn. (Twin Cities) 91 91 89 V-Missouri (Columbia) 92 95 92 Washington V 89 89 92 V-Nebraska 94 94 95 Princeton 92 97 93 96 96 92 Rutgers New Mexico State V 91 90 90 V-New Mexico 93 90 95 Columbia 85 98 98 Cornell (endowed colleges) 83 94 89 (statutory colleges) 93 95 100 New York Vniversity 88 97 91 Rockefeller 97 97 SVNY-Buffalo 84 90 91 SVNY-Stonybrook 89 90 92 V of Rochester 91 88 79 Duke III 97 90 North Carolina State V 87 93 94 V of North Carolina 88 95 88 Case Western Reserve 91 99 91 Ohio State V 90 94 89 V-Cincinnati 89 97 92 Oregon State V 91 95 91 82 Carnegie-Mellon 79 88 Pennsylvania State V 89 94 84 Temple 89 91 96 V -Pennsylvania 92 95 88 V-Pittsburgh 88 95 92 Brown 86 92 90 91 V-Tennessee 88 93 Vanderbilt 88 97 84 TexasA&M 89 89 88 V-Texas(Austin) 86 93 86 V-Vtah 84 94 89 91 Vtah State V 93 V-Virginia 96 97 90 91 Va. Commonwealth V 90 93 Virginia Polytech 89 92 95 V-Washington 89 94 93 West Virginia V 88 89 89 V-WISConsin (Madison) 87 90 89 Average 88 93 91 Source: See Table 1

1998

2000

PR

AO

A!

PR

AO

A!

96 92 88 94 87 94 93 89 86 91

96 96 96 92 94 92 94 94 95 95

101 93 88 97 94 99 96 91 95 96

94 92 87 96 88 97 92 87 89 91

96 94 93 93 94 94 95 94 91 87

98 94 96 88 97 96 99 91 98 94

89 93 90

92 97 92

99 96 90

94 95 87

88 97 96

88 87 81 93 88 91 91 94 87 99 82 93 93 96 88 94 88 89 92 87 86 91 93 94 81 91 91 87 90

90 95 88 90 9 92 94 90 93 94 85 90 94 90 96 93 97 86 92 94 96 87 96 98 93 92 95 92 94

94 96 90 91 97 97 91 95 92 94 83 94 99 84 93 99 91 93 96 89 82 93 98 96 97 93 95 91 94

91 89 81 95 87 95 93 92 89 101 84 93 92 90 89 93 81 90 90 88 87 94 94 94 82 92 90 85 91

91 99 90 88 91 95 96 94 90 94 85 91 92 87 95 96 91 88 93 94 97 89 93 94 92 93 96 92 94

97 104 89 96 94 94 79 97 94 95 88 99 96 92 88 91 102 80 90 94 86 92 94 89 88 93 100 88 100 94 97 90 93


51

REFERENCES Mfirmative Action Reports of the late 1990s are referenced in the text. Academe. 1988, 1998,2000. Academe 74 (March-April 1988); 84 (MarchApril 1998); 86 (March-April 2000).

Ahern, Nancy C., and Elizabeth L. Scott. 1981. Career outcomes in a matched sample of men and women Ph.D.s: An analytical report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Cornell University. 1974. A commitment to equality: One century later. Report of the Ad Hoc Trustee Committee on the Status of Women, Cornell University. Hornig, Lilli S., and Ruth B. Ekstrom. 1984. The status of women in the humanities. Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Indiana University. 1971. Study ofthe status ofwomen faculty at Indiana University, Bloomington campus. Report of the AAUP Committee on the Status of Women. University of California. 1972. Women in the graduate sector of the University of California. Report of an Ad Hoc Committee of the Coordinating Committee on Graduate Mfairs. University of California-Los Angeles. 1972. Report of the chancellor's advisory committee on the status ofwomen at UCLA. University of Minnesota. 1978. Preliminary report on the status ofwomen faculty on the Twin Cities campus. Report prepared for TC-AAUP Committee W, by Charlotte Striebel. University of Tennessee. 1972. Taskforce on women. Report of the Task Force. Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Vetter, Betty M., and Eleanor L. Babco. 1997. Professional women and minorities. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Yale University. 1971. A report to the president. Report of the Committee on the Status of Professional Women at Yale.

Chapter Three

A National Profile of Academic Women in Research Universities 1 Helen S. Astin Christine M. Cress

During the last three decades, the pool offemale Ph.D. recipients potentially available for academic appointments has increased dramatically. In 1977, women earned 25 percent of awarded doctoral degrees. A decade later (1987), this percentage had risen to 35 percent. By 1996, women constituted 40 percent of the total number of doctorates and 47 percent ofthe pool of U.S. doctoral recipients (National Research Council 1996). The representation of women faculty within American higher education institutions, however, has not increased at the same rate. For example, in 1972-73 women represented 22 percent of all faculty across academic ranks. By 1982, they occupied 27 percent of faculty positions, and by 1995-96 women accounted for 35 percent of all faculty (Vetter and Babco 1986; Sax, Astin, Arredondo, and Korn 1996). In other words, there has been a relatively slow rate of gender integration in the academy (West 1995 ). Over the years, scholars have examined the lives of women in academe (Astin 1969; Dickens 1993), with particular focus on women faculty (Aisenberg and Harrington 1988; Chamberlain 1988; Rossi and Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities Edited by Hornig, K1uwer Academic/plenum Publishers, 2003

53

54


Calderwood 1973; Simeone 1987). Areas of study have included career patterns (Finnegan 1993; Tack and Patitu 1992); job satisfaction (Aguirre 1994; Boice 1993); challenges faced by academic couples (Ferber and Loeb 1997); and tenure, promotion, and salary equity (Finkel 1994; Strober 1993; Wunsch 1994). Researchers have also investigated the barriers and "chilly climate" that women faculty face (Sandler 1986; Parson, 1991) as well as the struggles associated with balancing various roles and responsibilities (Johnsrud and Wunsch 1991). From this body ofresearch, specific strategies on how academic women can succeed in higher education institutions have also emerged. This is particularly important since retention of women faculty is just as serious a concern as retention of students (Sandler 1991, 1992). As the demographics of college student populations continue to evolve, the need for increasing efforts to identify, recruit, and retain women and racial/ethnic minority faculty is especially critical (Elmore and Balmert 1995). While women are currently more than one-third of the faculty across all types of institutions, their representation is lower within research universities (28 percent). Moreover, academic women are more likely to be employed by four- and two-year colleges rather than universities (Sax et al. 1996). Further, Hensel (1991) has reported that women are an under-represented group in tenured faculty positions and suffer from subtle gender discrimination in teaching, research, salary differentials, and promotion. In an effort to explore further the lives of female academics, this paper describes the status of women faculty in research universities I and II, based on data collected by the Higher Education Research Institute (HER!) at the University of California, Los Angeles, during the 1995-96 academic year. We compare women at research universities to women at all institutions of higher education combined. Academic women in research universities are also compared to academic men at these same institutions. METHODOLOGY

The data were collected in the fall of 1995 by mailing 143,816 questionnaires to faculty at a representative sample of 403 institutions across the country. A total of 59,933 usable survey questionnaires were returned for an overall response rate of 42 percent (see Sax et al. 1996).


ss

Faculty participants were identified as teaching faculty if they met at least one of the following criteria: 1. employed full-time at the institution and noted teaching as his/ her principal activity. 2. employed full-time at the institution and taught at least two courses in the last term. 3. employed full-time at the institution and spent at least 9 hours per week in scheduled teaching, but did not specify the level of courses being taught. From this database we selected faculty who were teaching at research universities I and II which comprised 48 research universities. Within these institutions there were 19,858 respondents, of whom 5,659 (28 percent) were women. The paper presents the results of cross tabulations and regression analyses. For the cross tabulations where we compare women with men at research universities and across all institutions, we have weighted the data to represent the population of teaching faculty at U.S. colleges and universities. (Data are weighted by correcting for sampling and response bias. For specific weighting procedures, see Sax et al. 1996.) We also have used weighted data to compare women and men regarding the analysis for time to tenure, and differences on composite measures representing selected values and behaviors. The regression analyses employ the unweighted N that includes all women and men at research universities I and II who responded to the survey questionnaire. These analyses were performed to identify predictors of salary and research productivity. Differences between predicted and actual salary received by women as well as differences in actual and predicted rate of publication were also explored. Finally, a brief case study is included in the appendix that describes trends over time on the status of women at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), a large public research university I.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FACULTY AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Overall, women are younger than are men across all institutions combined as well as at research universities (see Table 1).

56


Table 1 AGE

~34

35-49 50-64 65+

RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

8.7 55.4 32.6 3.2

5.7 39.4 46.5 8.3

10.9 53.6 33.6 1.9

8.5 42.1 44.6 4.8

Note: All data are weighted

Table 2 RACIAUETHNIC BACKGROUND

RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Men

Women

Men

88.5 4.2 1.3 3.2

90.7 1.7 0.8 4.2

90.1 3.8 1.7 2.9

90.9 2.4 1.4 3.8

1.2 0.8 1.7 1.6

0.6 0.2 1.2 1.5

1.8 0.5 1.4 1.4

1.3 0.3 1.0 1.9

Women White/Caucasian African Am./Black American Indian Asian Am./Asian Mexican Am./Chicano Puerto Rican Am. Other Latino Other

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Note: percentages will sum to more than 100.0 if respondents checked more than one category

Women of color represent a slightly higher percentage of the faculty at research universities than at all other institutions, however, these percentages are still quite dismal (see Table 2). Currently, full-time teaching faculty from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups account for only about 9 percent of all faculty (Astin et al. 1997). As such, while this analysis is concerned with examining women at research universities, it should be noted that only about 12 percent of these faculty are women of color. With respect to rank, across all institutions more than halfofwomen faculty are at the assistant professor level or lower ranks, compared to

57


Table 3 RANK RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES ALL INSTITUTIONS Women Men Women Men Professor Associate Assistant/Other·

19.6 28.7 55.4

50.4 26.9 39.4

17.5 24.5 53.6

41.3 26.3 42.1

*Note: includes assistant, lecturer, instructor, other

Table 4 HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Women Men B.A., B.S. M.A., M.S. LL.B., J.D. M.D., D.D.S. Ed.D. Ph.D.

1.5 18.7 0.4 1.0 3.0 70.4

0.9 7.14 0.6 0.6 1.7 85.8

ALL INSTITUTIONS Women Men 3.4 0.9 0.5 0.3 5.1 42.5

2.4 21.9 0.7 0.4 3.7 65.2

32 percent ofmen. Likewise, twice as many women at research universities (52 percent), compared to men (23 percent) are at these lower academic ranks. While only about one-fifth of women at research universities are at the full professor level, more than half of the men at research universities are full professors (see Table 3). There are discernible differences between men and women with respect to highest degree attained. Within research universities, 70 percent of women hold the Ph.D. compared to 86 percent of men. These proportions, not surprisingly, are much higher for both genders at research universities when compared to faculty across all institutions (see Table 4). There are marked differences between men and women with respect to salary (see Table 5, next page). While almost one-fourth of men at research universities earn $70,000 or more, only 6 percent of women earn such salaries. This salary differential can be explained to a large


58

Table 5 EARNED SALARY RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

$ (000) ~29

30-49 50-69 70+

Women 10.5 59.8 23.4 6.3

Men 2.8 36.7 37.3 23.2

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women 13.2 65.4 18.8 2.8

Men 4.9 46.5 36.3 12.5

Table 6 ACADEMIC FIELDS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Agriculture Biological Sci Business Education Engineering English Fine Arts Health Sci. History/PoliS Humanities Math/Stats Physical Sci Social Sci

Women

Men

1.1 4.8 4.8 6.4 1.4 7.6 9.5 12.8 5.4 13.8 2.1 2.6 12.9

3.2 7.0 5.1 3.7 10.4 5.1 8.3 3.1 7.9 9.6 5.0 9.3 11.2

ALL INSTITUTIONS Women

0.3 4.2 6.8 10.8 0.8 10.7 8.1 16.6 3.5 8.8 5.2 2.9 10.8

Men

1.8 6.6 8.2 6.1 6.2 6.6 9.4 2.4 7.0 7.8 6.5 9.6 11.4

extent as a function of gender differences in both rank and field. For example, at research universities 25 percent ofmen are in the more highly paid fields of physical science, mathematics/statistics, and engineering combined, compared to 6 percent of women. Likewise, more than twice as many women (33 percent) as men (16 percent) are in the less financially lucrative fields of education, health science and humanities combined (see Table 6).

59


RESEARCH INTERESTS AND PRODUCTIVITY Our survey queried faculty on whether their primary interests leaned toward research or teaching. Men's interests were found to lean more toward research while women's interests were more oriented toward teaching (see Table 7). More than half of men at research universities (55 percent) lean toward research compared to 47 percent of women who indicate a research preference. Likewise, 53 percent of women compared to 45 percent of men say that their interests lean more toward teaching. Tables 8-10 report gender differences with respect to number of hours spent on teaching, advising/counseling, and research and scholarly writing. The descriptive analyses indicate that women tend to spend more hours than men on teaching and advising, while men spent more hours on research and writing.

Table 7 PRIMARY INTERESTS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Teaching Research

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

52.6 47.4

45.1 54.9

80.5 19.5

71.3 28.7

Table 8 HOURS PER WEEK SPENT ON SCHEDULED TEACHING RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES None

1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17+

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

0.5 12.8 53.2 21.1 5.4 7.1

0.8 17.0 56.6 17.0 4.7 3.9

0.4 6.0 22.8 31.7 19.8 19.4

0.5 7.8 29.8 31.5 15.8 14.8

60


Table 9

HOURS PER WEEK SPENT ADVISING/COUNSELING STUDENTS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Women Men None 1-4 5-8 9-12 13+

1.6 57.2 31.1 7.6 2.5

2.3 61.3 27.2 6.7 2.5

ALL INSTITUTIONS Women Men 2.9 53.2 32.0 8.0 3.8

2.7 59.7 28.2 6.9 2.6

Table 10

HOURS PER WEEK SPENT ON RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY WRITING RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES None 1-4 5-8 9-12 13+

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

12.0 23.8 20.5 14.9 28.8

6.0 16.0 18.2 18.8 41.0

34.7 32.8 14.3 7.8

22.2 28.5 17.3 12.1 20.0

lOA

Tables 11-13 report data on research/scholarly productivity. With respect to faculty's cumulative publication record, men report more authorship on articles and books than do women. However, men have typically been in their academic positions much longer than women as is evident based on differences in age and rank (see Tables 1 and 3). However, when we control for productivity during the last two years, the gender differences are less marked (see Table 13), and in part some of these differences can be explained based on differences in rank and field (see the later regression analysis that controls for these relevant variables) .

61


Table 11

NUMBER OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN ACADEMIC OR PROFESSIONAL JOU RNALS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Men Women None 1-4 5-20 21+

14.3 30.1 38.1 17.6

5.6 13.8 35.1 45.5

ALL INSTITUTIONS Women Men 38.8 36.2 19.6 5.4

22.0 28.0 29.3 20.8

Table 12

NUMBER OF BOOKS, MANUALS, AND/OR MONOGRAPHS PUBLISHED RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Women Men None 1-2 3-4 5+

47.8 34.6 11.1 6.5

35.8 33.2 15.2 15.8

ALL INSTITUTIONS Women Men 67.7 23.0 5.9 3.3

52.9 28.2 10.1 8.9

Table 13

PUBLICATIONS IN THE LAST lWO YEARS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Women Men None 1-4 5+

20.3 48.2 31.5

17.9 42.9 39.2

ALL INSTITUTIONS Women 40.9 41.3 17.8

Men 34.5 42.2 23.4

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN VALUES AND ATIITUDES Our survey questionnaire included a number of questions designed to assess faculty's values and attitudes about their work; their views about

62


goals for undergraduate education; and attitudes about social issues. A number of questions were also posed to faculty regarding their satisfaction with work, feelings of stress, and perceived sources of such stress. CHOICE OF AN ACADEMIC CAREER

One of the sets of survey items explored the reasons faculty give for choosing an academic career (see Table 14). While both men and women list "intellectual challenge," "freedom to pursue their interests," and "intellectual freedom" as the most compelling reasons for their choice, there are some notable differences between women and men. For example, women are more likely than men to indicate a "flexible schedule" and "teaching opportunities" as important reasons for their choice. Gender difference in academic career choice is especially notable with respect to the importance women in research universities attach to "opportunities to influence social change" (27 percent ofwomen compared to 15 percent of men). On the other hand, men at research universities tend to endorse more often the "prestige and status of the occupation" and "opportunities for research" as reasons for their choice of an academic career. Table 14 REASONS FOR PURSUING AN ACADEMIC CAREER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES ALL INSTITUTIONS Intellectual Challenge Freedom to Pursue Interests Intellectual Freedom Autonomy Flexible Schedule Opportunities for Teaching Opportunities for Research Opportunity to Influence Social Change Prestige and Status

Women

Men

Women

Men

91.0

90.5

85.6

82.9

85.2 84.0 75.9 72.1

84.9 84.7 77.0 62.6

74.9 79.0 69.8 72.0

74.6 78.7 69.8 61.1

66.2

58.6

77.7

68.8

59.5

67.8

33.4

42.2

26.6 18.0

14.5 21.2

28.3 18.7

16.6 17.7

Note: Percentage of respondents marking "very important" or "essential"

63


PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL GOALS Table 15 reports faculty responses to items related to the importance they attach to achieving various professional goals. Both women and men were found to attach high importance to being a good teacher, engaging in research, and being a good colleague. Where we see the most notable gender differences are in the areas of service to the institution and community. Women are by far more likely to report that such service is an essential or very important goal in their professional lives. Interestingly, these findings seem to re-emphasize a fairly recent publication entitled, "Women faculty excel as campus citizens" (Carnegie Foundation 1990). A related question dealt with personal goals. The goals addressed in this question covered areas ofinterest, importance, and concern to faculty outside their academic/work life (see Table 16). Examining the responses of faculty to these questions we note some very interesting differences between men and women. Women are much more outward and/or "other" directed, while men are more concerned with achieving personal recognition. Women much more often endorse goals such as "influencing social values," "engaging in environmental cleanup," "helping others in difficulty," and "helping to promote racial understanding," while men much more often than women endorse as essential or important goals, "becoming an authority in their field," "obtaining recognition from others" and "being very well-off financially. "

Table 15 PROFESSIONAL GOALS RESEARCH

UNIVERSITIES Be a Good Teacher Be a Good Colleague Engage in Research Community Service Committee/Admin. Work

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

98.4 86.8 76.5 44.6 27.0

98.6 82.1 81.9 31.5 19.2

99.3 90.9 48.7 50.3 36.6

99.1 84.5 57.5 37.6 24.2


64

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes Table 16 PERSONAL GOALS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

Develop a Meaningful Philosophy of Life Help Promote Racial Understanding Help Others in Difficulty Become Authority in Own Field Raise a Family Obtain Recognition from Colleagues Influence Social Values Environmental Cleanup Involvement Be Very Well-Off Financially Influence Political Structure

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

80.2

73.3

82.5

76.6

68.6 65.7

52.0 54.7

68.4 71.6

55.7 60.5

63.4 61.4

72.1 78.9

54.0 64.8

58.0 77.7

58.1 47.1

60.8 29.9

43.9 48.5

46.0 35.6

34.9

29.7

37.5

31.7

27.9

37.7

31.8

37.8

22.8

13.8

19.6

14.0


Table 17 CURRENT MARITAL STATUS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Married With Partner Single Divorced

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

61.6 7.5 16.4 30.3

84.1 3.5 6.1 24.3

65.2 5.4 29.4 28.4

82.7 3.2 14.1 23.6

Note: Divorced category refers only to whether or not respondents have "ever" been divorced at any time and does not include separated or widowed responses


65

With respect to the question of the importance of raising a family, the difference among faculty in research universities favors men by a considerable margin (79 versus 61 percent). This is consistent with the differences between men and women with respect to their marital status (fewer women are married than are men) (see Table 17, previous page). GOALS FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Faculty were asked to indicate the importance of each of 12 educational goals for undergraduate students. Examining the faculty's responses to these goals (see Table 18) we observe that the larger differences between men and women involve goals that have to do with the importance of personal development and civic responsibility (e.g., "instill commitment to community service," "enhance self understanding," "prepare for responsible citizenship"). Women tend to endorse these as very important or essential goals for undergraduates more often than do men. The only difference favoring men's views on an undergraduate goal is the "teaching of the classics of Western civilization." SOURCES OF SATISFACTION

The questions on satisfaction dealt with over-all satisfaction as well as satisfaction with various aspects of academic work. In research universities, men report greater overall satisfaction with their work (see Table 19). Men also report greater satisfaction with most aspects of their work with the exception of the "quality of students" where women are more satisfied. The two aspects where men show a notable difference from women is in their satisfaction with "job security" (81 percent versus 62 percent, respectively) and "opportunities for scholarly pursuits" (71 percent versus 54 percent, respectively). Both of these items relate to one's seniority and, as noted earlier, men occupy the more senior academic ranks in academe, where tenured faculty and faculty at the higher ranks are the most likely to enjoy both greater job security and more resources for their work. These findings are congruent with other research that indicates that women faculty report high levels of satisfaction with the amount of autonomy they have in their jobs as well as with their student and peer relationships. Low levels of satisfaction are associated with the lack of mentoring from senior colleagues, balancing work and other activities, working conditions, and pay (Robertson and Bean 1997).

66


Table 18 GOALS FOR UNDERGRADUATES RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Women Men Develop Ability to Think Clearly Increase Self-Directed Learning Enhance SelfUnderstanding Employment Preparation Responsible Citizenship Preparation Graduate School Preparation Personal Values Development Develop Moral Character Enhance Out-of-Oass Experience Instill Commitment to Community Service Emotional Development Teach Classics of Western Civilization

ALL INSTITUTIONS Women

Men

99.3

99.3

99.6

99.3

92.3

89.2

94.8

90.0

63.0 62.1

49.9 57.2

70.7 77.2

56.7 66.3

59.9

50.8

67.8

58.2

55.1

51.3

56.0

52.2

54.4 48.3

47.4 44.3

65.2 63.1

56.6 54.5

39.2

30.6

47.0

38.5

35.4 34.8

23.4 24.5

42.6 46.1

30.6 33.0

24.4

28.5

25.7

29.6


STRESS AND THE SOURCES OF STRESS Not only do we find women to be less satisfied with their work, we also observe that they report experiencing more stress than do men. Fortyeight percent of women compared to 28 percent of men report having experienced extreme stress during the past two years. In examining the aCUlal sources of stress (see Table 20), what is especially disheartening is the fact that 44 percent of the women in research universities compared to 16 percent of men report experiencing stress from "subtle discrimination". The review and promotion process) while stressful for both men and women, is more stressful for women, as are the demands placed on them for research and publications. "Personal finances" is also a major

67


Table 19 SATISFACTION RESEARCH UNIVERSITffiS Autonomy and Independence Opportunity to Develop New Ideas Working Conditions Professional Relations with Faculty Teaching Load Quality of Students Job Security Opportunity for Scholarly Pursuits Salary and Fringe Benefits Visibility for Jobs at Other Institutions Overall Satisfaction

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

86.7

91.2

85.0

86.8

72.9 71.7

80.6 78.1

71.9 70.2

74.0 73.2

70.1 68.7 64.5 61.8

73.2 77.2 55.6 81.4

78.0 59.5 53.0 66.1

76.1 64.7 45.3 77.1

54.4 43.7

71.3 50.8

46.7 49.8

57.3 50.8

44.3 72.0

46.4 77.7

46.5 75.7

46.1 75.7

Note: Percentage of respondents marking "satisfactory" or "very satisfactory"

source ofstress for both women and men (56 and 54 percent, respectively, report such stress). Finally, very high proportions ofwomen (91 percent) report feeling stressed because of "lack of personal time." Comparing women at research universities to women across all institutions, we find that women at research universities are less satisfied with their work (see Table 19) and are somewhat more stressed in general (see Table 20). For example, while 44 percent of women at research universities report stress from subde discrimination, 34 percent of women at all institutions combined report to have experienced stress from subde discrimination. Further, 56 percent of women faculty at research universities are stressed about the review and promotion process, as compared to 50 percent of women faculty across all institutions. Not surprisingly, the greatest difference in reported stress between women at research universities and women across all institutions combined is in the area ofresearch and publishing demands (76 percent versus 48 percent).

68


Table 20 SOURCES OF STRESS RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Time Pressures Lack of Personal Time Research/Publishing Demands Household Responsibilities Colleagues Teaching Load Students Committee Work Personal Finances Review/Promotion Process Faculty Meetings Physical Health Subtle Discrimination Child Care Care of Elderly Parent Children's Problems Marital Friction

ALL INSTITUTIONS

Women

Men

Women

Men

93.8 90.8

86.0 78.3

92.0 90.0

82.6 76.5

75.7 74.9 64.5 63.5 60.5 58.4 55.7

72.2 63.0 55.7 51.2 52.7 53.1 54.2

47.5 76.4 59.4 69.8 66.2 60.0 59.7

50.2 64.7 54.0 59.5 58.0 53.5 58.3

55.6 54.4 47.2 44.1 34.4 29.5 29.1 24.6

41.7 46.1 39.2 16.2 32.8 24.1 34.3 26.5

50.1 54.2 47.5 34.4 32.9 31.7 31.6 23.3

42.0 48.2 41.1 18.4 32.0 25.3 32.7 25.6

Note: Percentage of respondents marking "somewhat" or "extensive"

COMPOSITE VARIABLE DIFFERENCES In addition to the assessment of gender differences on individual items representing various values, we created some composite measures utilizing a factor analysis (varimax rotation and principal components methods) and tested for differences in means across gender. Table 21 lists means and standard deviations on these measures for women and men. (The individual items in each composite measure are listed in Appendix B.) All measures indicate significant differences between women and men. Women express a stronger humanistic orientation, are more interested in activism and service, and are more student-centered in their pedagogy. On the other hand, men have a greater interest in prestige and status, and value intellectual freedom to a greater extent.


69

Table 21 COMPOSITE VARIABLES: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN n*

Mean

Use of Student-Centered Pedagogy·· Women 26,454 18.28 Men 83,838 15.80 Humanistic Orientation Women 27,133 13.72 Men 82,193 12.52 Personal Commitment to Service·· Women 22,567 12.35 Men 70,085 11.50 Intellectual Freedom·· Women 27,415 11.07 Men 86,046 11.20 Need for Autonomy Orientation·· Women 27,500 5.41 Men 85,999 5.31 Activist/Service Orientation· * Women 27,488 4.63 Men 86,080 4.26 Career Importance: Occupational Prestige/Status· * Women 27,556 1.91 Men 86,295 1.96

*.

Standard Deviation 5.11 4.45 2.88 2.93 2.83 2.83 1.29 1.23 0.89 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.66 0.68

Note: * weighted data, **p e::

~ 8l

'-8> gQl a ,0 lOen

._

In

(ij ~ '(3

a en

e:: Q)

'(3

en

UJ

Source: Survey of Doctoral Recipients, unpublished tabulations (comparable data unavailable for 1973). For data sec Appendix Table 2

money" research positions in research universities, while there has been very slow growth in the number of regular faculty positions. Faculty rank is another measure of the status of women in research universities. In Figures 5a and 5b, for full professors and assistant professors, respectively, we again see the pattern of steady growth in the percent female for all fields, with the greatest growth in those fields where there are the most women.

116

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes Figure 4a

WOMEN IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES I TENURE TRACK STATUS 1995 4500..-----------------....., 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500

10 Tenure Track • Non-Tenure Track

o

~VI c:~ >.

Q)

.s::. "~ c: w

~

'8>

en

Q)

u

c

Q)

(5 '0 CJ)

iii

1995

l/)

Q)

~ u c Q) CJ) '0

g

CJ)

:E Source: Survey of Doctoral Recipients. Unpublished Tabulations. See Appendix Table 3

It should be noted that although the patterns over time are similar, a far smaller percentage of full professors are women than is the case for assistant professors. We shall investigate a number of explanations for this. The most obvious explanation is that if it takes ten or more years for a faculty member to become a full professor and if only a small percentage offaculty were women ten or more years earlier, then we would not expect

118


to see an appreciable percentage ofwomen in the ranks of full professors. We shall also look at differences between men and women in generational "luck"-being in the pool of the academically employed at a time when academia was expanding. Before we venture into these detailed analyses, however, we can ask whether women are represented among assistant professors at research universities in proportion to their share ofthe pool ofnew Ph.D.s. One answer to this question is shown in Table 1 for the RU Is. A negative difference indicates that women are underrepresented among assistant professors relative to their representation in the pool. Although the differences are not large, women would appear to be consistently underrepresented among Table 1 ARE WOMEN AT RUs REPRESENTED AMONG ASSISTANT PROFESSORS AS THEY ARE IN THE POOL OF PH.D.s PRODUCED IN THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS? &search University I

Percent Female

Assistant professors

1973

1979

1989

1995

AllS&E Physical Science Mathematical Sciences Engineering Biological Sciences Social Sciences

9.4% 4.9% 0.9% 0.7% 10.9% 15.9%

18.9% 5.3% 11.2% 3.7% 15.8% 34.4%

25.8% 12.9% 14.1% 8.3% 33.0% 35.9%

32.0% 18.2% 22.3% 14.7% 39.2% 45.4%

Ph.D.sPrevious Seven Years

1973

1979

1989

1995

AllS&E Physical Science Mathematics Engineering Biological Science Social Science

9.8% 5.3% 6.7% 0.4% 14.1% 16.7%

15.5% 7.8% 10.8% 1.6% 19.3% 25.0%

26.7% 15.6% 15.8% 5.9% 32.8% 41.3%

30.1% 19.8% 18.5% 9.0% 39.4% 47.7%

-0.4% -0.4% -5.8% 0.2% -3.2% -0.8%

3.4% -2.4% 0.4% 2.1% -3.5% 9.4%

-0.9% -2.7% -1.7% 2.4% 0.2% -5.5%

1.9% -1.6% 3.7% 5.7% -0.2% -2.3%

Difference in Percentage AlIS&E Physical Science Mathematics Engineering Biological Science Social Science

119

You've Come a Long Way: Data on Women Doctoral Scientists

physical science assistant professors. On the other hand, for engineering, a field in which the numbers of women continue to be very low, it would appear that women are represented among assistant professors in consistently higher percentages than they appear in the pool ofPh.D.s. In 1995, that is also the case for mathematics.

IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME? THE EXPERIENCE OF COHORTS One way to examine the progress ofwomen in research universities is to ask: is the share of women in each Ph.D. cohort who are employed by research universities increasing over time? We know that women are a growing share of Ph.D.s, and this would lead us to expect that women should have a growing share of academic positions shortly after receipt of the Ph.D. But as these Ph.D. cohorts age, is this growing percentage of the research university work force maintained? In short, we wish to follow Ph.D. cohorts over time and see if the younger cohorts are faring better than their counterparts did at an earlier time and whether, as these cohorts age, the share of women employed in research universities is staying constant or increasing. The Survey of Doctoral Recipients is barely up to this task, although it is the best data we have. There are simply too few women, especially in the early years, to make meaningful comparisons. What we have done to get around this problem is to lump together all the Ph.D.s from a ten year period. For the surveys from 1973 to 1995, this aggregation gives us 4lf2 cohorts, defined as follows: 1979 Survey

1989 Survey

1995 Survey

1949-58

1959-69

1969-78

Fifties Cohort

Sixties Cohort

Middle Career

1959-68

1969-78

Late Career

1969-78

1979-88

Seventies Cohort 1979-88 Eighties Cohort 1989-94 Nineties Half-cohort

Late Career

This ten year aggregation will give a somewhat distorted picture of the condition ofwomen relative to men, because the population ofwomen is growing in any given decade while the number of male Ph.D.s produced per year is growing much more slowly. Thus, when we look at

120


attainment measures (tenure track, rank), women will be, on average younger than men in the same cohort. Still, the comparison of the experience of women in each cohort is instructive. (See Appendix Table 4 for gender composition of cohorts.) The progress that has been made over the past 20 years in increasing the participation of women in research universities is well illustrated in Figure 6. Women are a growing share in all fields at all career stages, but the later the career stage, the smaller that share is. It is also clear that the greater the share ofwomen in early career, the greater the share in late career. We only have complete data for one cohort, those who received their Ph.D.s in the 1970s, but we can look at field differences for this cohort and we can follow the other cohorts as they move through two career stages. 3 The full experience for the 1970s cohort is shown in Figure 7 and the two stage experiences are shown in Figure 8. Although always less than 30% of those employed in research universities, the share ofwomen increased as this cohort advanced from early to middle career in the life and social sciences. From middle to late career, the share remained approximately constant for the physical and life sciences, with slight declines in the other fields. Examining the early to middle career transition, for which we have data for the 1980s cohort, it does not appear that this cohort is faring as well, as shown in Figure 8a. The 1980s cohort experienced declines in the women's share of research university employment in the physical and social sciences, while holding their own in other fields. This could have resulted from lower rates of tenuring for women, which we will investigate below. On the other hand, it is true that the '80s cohort has a greater share than the '70s cohort in research university positions for all fields and for each career stage. A similar improvement in cohort experience over time is shown in the middle to late career transition, shown in Fig. 8b. On the other hand, the '60s cohort shows growth in the share of female employment in math and life science in late career, which does not occur for the '70s cohort. The '70s cohort, however, has a larger share than the '60s cohort does at all career stages. Although there has been considerable improvement in the share of women of more recent cohorts, we now have to examine what kind of employment it is and how it has changed over time. Achieving tenure is probably the most visible sign of status in research universities and we


121

Figure 6a

PERCENT FEMALE: EARLY CAREER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 60.0%

50.0% 40.0%

r-------------------., I~ 1 1979 .1989 01995

30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Physical Science

Mathematical Engineering Sclence

Life Science

Social Science

Figure 6b

PERCENT FEMALE: MIDDLE CAREER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 60.0%

r-------------------.....,

50.0%

I ~1979 .1989 01995 1

40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% t-"""",""--....L..-,..."" Physical Science

Mathematical Engineering Sclence

Life Science

Social Science

Figure 6c

PERCENT FEMALE: LATE CAREER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 60.0% , . . - - - - - . . , . .

..,..---------,

131979 .1989

1995

so.O%

40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.00/. 0.0% +-"~--...!..l-~--..L..+---+_'""' Physical Science

Mathematical Science

Engineering Life Science

Social Science


122 Figure 7

PERCENT FEMALE, 1970S COHORT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 30.0%T"""-----------------------, L1Early 1979

25.0%

• Middle 1989 Clate 1995

20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Physical Science

Engineering

Mathematical Science

l~e

Science

Social Science

Figure 8a

COHORT EXPERIENCE: EARLY TO MIDDLE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 45,0%T"""----------------------, 40,0% .!! 35,0% ~ 30.0% If 25.0% c: 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

j

Physical Science Mathematical Science

Engineering

l~e Science

Social Science

e 70's cohort Early 1979

E170's cohort Middle 1989 c 70's cohort Middle 1989 D80's cohort Early 1989 -80's cohort Middle 1995

Figure 8b

COHORT EXPERIENCE: MIDDLE TO LATE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 30.0%T"""-----------------------, 25.0% .!! Ol

~

20.0%

~ 15.0%

~ 10.0% 5,0% 0.0% Physical Science Mathematical Science

Engineering

life Science

1360's cohort Middle 1979 S60's cohort late 1989 c 70's cohort Middle 1989 _ 70's cohort lats 1995

Social Science

o 60's cohort late 1989

Source: Appendix Table 5. Survey of Doctoral Recipients, unpublished tabulations

123

You've Come a long Way: Data on Women Doctoral Scientists

Figure 9

PERCENT TENURED-RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES MIDDLE CAREER 110%r--------------------,

e 100% , 90%

t ~

80%

~70% ~80%

i

50%

1>.40%

30% +WILIoIol.... Physlcal Sciences

I

Matllem8l1c8l Sdences

1979 Men. 1979 Women

Eng_ng

LIfe SCIences

l

SocIal SCIences

1989 Men 13 1989 Women.,995 "'81101995 Women

I

Source: See Appendix Table 6

would expect that most of those who are academically employed ten to twenty years past their Ph.D. would have achieved this status. In fact, men and women in mid-career have quite different rates of tenure and these differences persist and are shown in Figure 9. In all cases, the percentage ofwomen with tenure (the right hand bar of the bar pairs) is lower than that of men. Between 1979 and 1989, the percent of women with tenure grew in most fields, while the percent of men with tenure declined. The gap, though narrower, remained. From 1989 to 1995, the percentage with tenure declined for both men and women. The difference in tenure rates, however, continued to decline or stayed constant in the physical, mathematical and life sciences but increased in the social and behavioral sciences. Although it appears that there was also a widening gap in engineering, the numbers are still so small that the apparent widening may be due to sampling variability. The source of the continued differential in tenure rates for men and women probably lies in differences in early academic careers. At this career stage, women have been more likely than men to find themselves in academic employment that is not tenure track. This difference disappeared for the 1990s cohort, when the academic job market worsened for both men and women, but the gender differential in off-tenure track employment disappeared or reversed except in the social sciences. 4 This is shown in Figure 10. The absolute numbers present a bleaker picture. Rather than looking at what percent ofwomen or men achieve tenure track status, ~e can

124


Figure 10

PERCENT IN NON-TENURE TRACK POSITIONS IN EARLY CAREER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

5O%T"'""--------------------------. 45% 40% 35% 30%

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

+-""'..................................ItLJ.....w__ Physical Sclences

~.-..L.L-=-

Mathematical SCiences

Engineering

Lffe Sclences

Social Sciences

1989 Men flI1989 Women .1995 Men 81995 Women

I

look at the numbers of women relative to the numbers of men who hold tenure track positions in each cohort. This is done in Fig. lla-llc. The significance ofthese numbers could be stated as follows: In 1995 a woman undergraduate or graduate student in a research university had slightly over one chance in ten ofencountering a tenure track woman ifshe was in the physical sciences, math, or engineering, and one chance in three if she was in the life or social sciences. Although underrepresentation of women is declining, it is still very much present. In fact, the answer to the question: "Are women in the right place at the right time?" is that women are in university careers in significant numbers at exactly the wrong time. In all science and engineering fields, tenure track employment in research universities was down in 1995 compared to 1989. Women were there in increasing numbers, but the size of the overall enterprise was smaller.

IS THE STATUS OF WOMEN DIFFERENT IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES THAN IN OTHER KINDS OF ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS? Research universities differ from other four-year institutions of higher education in a variety ofways. As their name suggests, research and doctoral education are a primary part of their mission. Teaching may also be important, but unless a faculty member demonstrates the ability to

125


Figure 11a

TENURE TRACK FACULTY-MIDDLE AND EARLY CAREER, RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: MATH, PHYSICAL, AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 16000..-------------------. 14000 12000 1‫סס‬oo

6000 6000 4000 2000

o

1979

1989

1995

Figure 11 b

TENURE TRACK FACULTY-MIDDLE AND EARLY CAREER, RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: LIFE SCIENCES 14000....-

...,

12000 1‫סס‬oo

6000 6000 4000 2000

o

1979

1989

1995

Figure 11c

TENURE TRACK FACULTY-MIDDLE AND EARLY CAREER, RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES: SOCIAL SCIENCES 14000 12000 1‫סס‬oo

8000

6000

4000 2000

0 1979

'989

I_Men Ilwomenl

1995


126

publish research in reputable journals and to attract research funding in competition with other researchers through the peer review process, he or she is unlikely to receive tenure and remain employed in a research university. The four year institutions of higher education that are not research universities are highly heterogeneous. They include highly prestigious liberal arts colleges, comprehensive institutions that grant very few doctoral degrees, and faith-based institutions. What they have in common is that research and doctoral education is less central to their mission than is the case for the research universities. The first question to investigate is: are women as likely as men to be employed in research universities? Then we may ask the question: does the kind ofinstitution make a difference to the proportion ofwomen in tenuretrack positions? The difference between the proportion ofmen and ofwomen employed in research universities is found in Table 2. In all fields but the life sciences and engineering, we see that a smaller proportion of women than men are employed in research universities but that, over time, this difference is shrinking. Further, it is likely that what we observe for these two fields is a statistical artifact resulting from the classification of free-standing medical schools and engineering institutes as non-research universities. Given that women are narrowing the gap in their proportion employed in research universities, is there a difference by type of institution Table 2 PERCENT OF TENURE TRACK FACULTY IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES BY GENDER All Science and Engineering

1979 1989 1995

Mathematical Sciences

Men

Women

Differenec

Men

Women

Differenec

Men

Women

Differenec

39% 43% 33%

29% 37% 32%

10% 6% 2%

36% 40% 42%

12% 34% 38%

23% 6% 4%

53% 52% 51%

15% 32% 36%

38% 20% 15%

Engineering

1979 1989 1995

Physical Sciences

Life Sciences

Social Sciences

Men

Women

Differenec

Men

Women

Differenec

Men

Women

56% 60% 63%

57% 58% 54%

-1% 2% 9%

39% 44% 46%

25% 36% 35%

14% 8% 11%

35% 35% 37%

31% 40% 38%

Differenec

4% -5% -1%

127

You've Come a Long Way: Data on Women Doctoral Scientists Figure 12

PERCENT WOMEN IN TENURE TRACK POSITIONS: NON RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES V5. RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% ~1979

4.0%

.1989

2.0%

01995

0.0% -2.0% -4.0% AIIS&E

Physical ScienC8$


Engineering

Biological Sciences

Social Sciences

in whether women hold tenure track positions? The differences by type of institution are shown in Figure 12. Positive differences mean that a greater proportion ofwomen in nonresearch universities hold tenure track positions than in research universities. It is clear that this is the case in all fields except the social sciences, where there are relatively more women. Further, the difference is widening in engineering, the biological sciences and the mathematical sciences, although that may reflect a higher level of tenure track positions for women in specialized institutions. CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this paper has been descriptive. We have found that the number of women scientists and engineers in research universities has been growing steadily over the past twenty years but that the greatest growth has occurred in fields that are already relatively highly populated by women. An analysis of the experience of different cohorts of women Ph.D.s over the period 1979 to 1995 finds that differences of rates of tenure between women and men have shrunk in all fields but the social sciences. Everyone in 1995, male and female, experienced the slowing growth of tenure-track positions in the 1990s and was less likely to become tenured if they were not already. There are now cohorts of Ph.D. women that are considerably larger than at any time in the past, but tenure-track positions are not growing. We also found that, with the exception


128

of the social sciences, women are more likely to hold tenure-track positions if they are employed in non-research universities. We have not speculated on the causes of continuing gender differences in status in research universities. These causes may vary from institution to institution and may have roots as diverse as tenure practices a decade ago or childcare and approaches to "two body" hiring decisions in the present. It is heartening to see that research universities are recognizing and addressing these issues. s Iftheir efforts are successful, they will broaden the pool of talent available to science and engineering.

NOTES 1. Prepared for the Harvard Conference on Women in Research Universities: The Next Quarter Century, November 1998. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent those of the National Research Council. The author would like to thank James Voytuk and Molla Teclemariam of the National Research Council for assistance in dealing with enormous volumes of data and J. Scott Long of Indiana University for assistance in sorting out the issues and for chairing the study of Gender Differences in Career Outcomes ofScientists and Engineers to which this preliminary study is also a contribution. 2. The total number of records (men and women) for the 4 SDR years considered in the paper (1973,1979,1989, and 1995) is over 30,000, but multiple cross-classifications quickly diminish the number of observations in any particular cell. For example, even the classification by gender (2), broad field (5), and type of institution (9) gives rise to 90 cells. Ifwe add faculty rank (4), the number of cells grows to 360. Fortunately a disproportionate share ofPh.D.s teach in research universities, so small cell sizes are less of a problem than simple enumeration of the number of cells would suggest. 3. Until 1995, respondents were dropped from the sample when they reached age 65, so it is impossible to follow the really late careers of the 1950s and 1960s cohorts. 4. This may also be an artifact of the truncated 1990s cohort. In order to show the latest data (1995), we only have data for 5 years of early career experience for this early cohort, compared to ten years of early career experience for the other cohorts.


129

5. For example, "The Study on the Status of Women Faculty at MIT," MIT Faculty Newsletter XI(Mar. 1999), http://web.mit.edu/fnlj women/women.html, and "Leaders of9 Universities and 25 Women Faculty Meet at MIT, Agree to Equity Reviews," MIT News, January 30, 2001, http://web.rnit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/gender.htrnl.

APPENDIX Appendix Table 1 ACADEMICALLY EMPLOYED MEN AND WOMEN PH.D.S IN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES BY BROAD FIELD, 1973, 1979, 1989, 1995 1973

1979

1989

1995

Male Female Percent Female

28793 1640 5.4%

33652 3436 9.3%

52845 10254 16.3%

54882 13546 19.8%


12998 729 5.3%

15759 1558 9.0%

16021 3033 15.9%

13186 3144 19.3%


41791 2369 5.4%

49411 4994 9.2%

68866 13287 16.2%

68068 16690 19.7%


5969 194 3.1%

6339 330 4.9%

9722 850 8.0%

10459 1129 9.7%


2729 55 2.0%

2676 129 4.6%

2331 189 7.5%

1913 276 12.6%


8698 249 2.8%

9015 459 4.8%

12053 1039 7.9%

12372 1405 10.2%


2819 99 3.4%

3453 208 5.7%

4957 488 9.0%

5522 694 11.2%


1272 65 4.9%

1410 101 6.7%

1586 132 7.7%

1355 226 14.3%

All Sf'$"E RUI

RUII

RU Total

PhysieRl &imm RUI

RUII

RU Total

MAthemRtia RUI

RUII


130

Appendix Table 1 continued 1973

1979

1989

1995

4091 164 3.9%

4863 309 6.0%

6543 620 8.7%

6877 920 11.8%


4601 14 0.3%

5953 57 0.9%

9952 328 3.2%

10804 537 4.7%

Male Female Percent Female RU Total Male Female Percent Female

2046 4 0.2%

2424 27 1.1%

3012 71

2.3%

2423 HI 4.4%

6647 18 0.3%

8377 84 1.0%

12964 399 3.0%

13227 648 4.7%


9241 653 6.6%

8952 1046 10.5%

14952 3952 20.9%

16059 5270 24.7%


4109 283 6.4%

4542 432 8.7%

4681 880 15.8%

3995 1031 20.5%

13350 936 6.6%

13494 1478 9.9%

19633 4832 19.8%

20054 6301 23.9%


6493 690 9.6%

9241 1812 16.4%

13653 4736 25.8%

12464 6086 32.8%


2963 333 10.1%

4834 876 15.3%

4702 1768 27.3%

3595 1518 29.7%

9456 1023 9.8%

14075 2688 16.0%

18355 6504 26.2%

16059 7604 32.1%

RU Total


Engineering RUI

RUn

Biological Scienees RUI

RUn

Social Sciences RUI

RUn

1979 Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track 1989 Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track 1995 Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track



Physical Science


AIIS&E

Men 2982 455 3946 546 4639 883

Men 4733 1590 6578 2173 7052 3407

Men 28119 5469 40156 8305 42491 12391

Women 143 65 329 123 332 362

RUI

Women 114 212 357 391 575 554

RUI

Women 2214 1178 5911 3539 8296 5250

RUI

Percent Female 4.6% 12.5% 7.7% 18.4% 6.7% 29.1%

Percent Female 2.4% 11.8% 5.1% 15.2% 7.5% 14.0%

Percent Female 7.3% 17.7% 12.8% 29.9% 16.3% 29.8%

Men 1306 104 1373 109 1339 16

Men 2374 302 1879 261 1575 338

Men 13731 1980 13238 1585 11383 1803

Women 66 35 122 9 191 35

RUn

Women 62 65 129 51 151 125

RUn

Women 976 570 2130 723 2271 873

Run

Percent Female 4.8% 25.2% 8.2% 7.6% 12.5% 68.6%

Percent Female 2.5% 17.7% 6.4% 16.3% 8.7% 27.0%

Percent Female 6.6% 22.4% 13.9% 31.3% 16.6% 32.6%

TENURE TRACK STATUS: RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

Appendix Table 2

Men 4288 559 5319 655 5978 899

Men 7107 1892 8457 2434 8627 3745

Men 41850 7449 53394 9890 53874 14194

Women 209 100 451 132 523 397

TotalRU

Women 176 277 486 442 726 679

TotalRU

Women 3190 1748 8041 4262 10567 6123

TotalRU

Percent Female 4.6% 15.2% 7.8% 16.8% 8.0% 30.6%

Percent Female 2.4% 12.8% 5.4% 15.4% 7.8% 15.3%

Percent Female 7.1% 19.0% 13.1% 30.1% 16.4% 30.1%

~

...,

EiI'

in·

::J

-

n ii).

V'l

~

0

Q.

0

0

::J

(1)

3

~

::J

0

0I1l S'

;C;

~

()Q

::J

0

,.....

I1l

3(1)

(") 0

ro~

c


Scx:ial Sciences


Biological Sciences


Engineering

Mcn 8145 1085 11096 1751 10116 2348

Mcn 7450 1481 10956 2670 12161 3898

Mcn 5056 897 7967 1169 8905 1899

Women 1325 470 2901 1535 3931 2155

RUI

Women 609 414 2154 1450 3065 2205

RUI

Women 40 17 235 71 431 106

RUI

Percent Female 14.0% 30.2% 20.7% 46.7% 28.0% 47.9%

Percent Fcmale 7.6% 21.8% 16.4% 35.2% 20.1% 36.1%

Pcrcent Fcmalc 0.8% 1.9% 2.9% 5.7% 4.6% 5.3%

Mcn 3983 838 3753 583 3023 572

Mcn 4027 480 3810 522 3404 591

Mcn 2164 260 2674 110 2137 286

Women 609 262 1303 341 1018 500

RUn

Womcn 233 194 527 314 818 213

RUn

Women 13 14 56 8 111 0

Run

Appendix Table 2 continued

Pcrccnt Fcmalc 13.3% 23.8% 25.8% 36.9% 25.2% 46.6%

Pcrccnt Fcmale 5.5% 28.8% 12.2% 37.6% 19.4% 26.5%

Percent Fcmalc 0.6% 5.1% 2.1% 6.8% 4.9% 0.0%

Men 12128 1923 14849 2334 13139 2920

Men 11477 1961 14766 3192 15565 4489

Mcn 7220 1157 10641 1279 11042 2185

Women 1934 732 4204 1876 4949 2655

TotalRU

Women 842 608 2681 1764 3883 24111

TotalRU

Womcn 53 31 291 79 542 106

TotalRU

Pcrcent Fcmalc 13.8% 27.6% 22.1% 44.6% 27.4% 47.6%

Pcrccnt Fcmalc 6.8% 23.7% 15.4% 35.6% 20.0% 35.0%

Pcrcent Fcmalc 0.7% 2.6% 2.7% 5.8% 4.7% 4.6%

\,0>

m

lJ

3

F) 0

c:

0

!:!..

.8c:

::::l

C

ffi'

;;10

c: !:!..

~

N

133


Appendix Table 2b PERCENT OF ACADEMICALLY EMPLOYED WHO ARE IN OFF-TENURE TRACK POSITIONS BY GENDER: RU I Men 1979 1989 1995 Women 1979 1989 1995

All S&B 16.3% 17.1% 22.6% 34.7% 37.4% 38.8%

Physical Mathematical Biological Sciences Sciences Engineering Sciences 25.1% 13.2% 15.1% 16.6% 24.8% 12.2% 12.8% 19.6% 32.6% 16.0% 17.6% 24.3% 65.0% 52.3% 49.1%

31.3% 27.2% 52.2%

29.8% 23.2% 19.7%

40.5% 40.2% 41.8%

Social Sciences 11.8% 13.6% 18.8%

26.2% 34.6% 35.4%

Appendix Table 3 FACULTY RANK RUI 1973 Full Professors Men Women All S&E 14006 328 Physical Science 2767 22 Mathematical Sciences2009 2 Engineering 1943 2 Biological Sciences 4182 112 Social Sciences 4097 174 Associate Professors All S&E 7550 479 Physical Science 1096 39 Mathematical Sciences1400 6 Engineering 1314 4 Biological Sciences 2358 175 Social Sciences 2171 241 Assistant Professors All S&E 6286 654 Physical Science 1014 52 Mathematical Sciences 988 9 Engineering 901 6 Biological Sciences 1927 235 Social Sciences 1620 306 Other All S&E 2471 596 Physical Science 990 156 Mathematical Sciences 380 7 Engineering 350 2 Biological Sciences 681 238 Social Sciences 356 183

Percent Female by Faculty Rank Full Professors All S&E 2.3% Physical Science 0.8%

1989 1979 1995 Men Women Men Women Men Women 16190 487 26050 1632 24920 2665 31 3054 4974 101 4503 153 1504 26 2678 74 2604 85 2983 5 5169 4955 33 51 3892 166 7317 952 6689 506 4824 263 5741 1460 6751 904 7679 1150 864 1637 2202 1939

628 55 48 10 194 325

10531 1387 995 1882 3030 3303

2286 135 170 57 758 1209

12107 1784 1360 2582 3553 2949

2906 162 135 117 1208 1304

6090 943

1417 53

636 1858 1682

32 348 882

8783 1253 830 1834 2715 2231

3055 185 136 167 1338 1247

8424 1325 914 1885 2379 1989

3958 295 262 325 1536 1653

3625 1190 208 497 948 782

857 187 23 10 321 316

7021 1958 418 969 2445 1265

3126 406 107 51 1261 1336

9431 2847 644 1382 2810 1785

4017 519 212 62 1574 1669

877

2.9% 1.0%

III

5.9% 2.0%

9.7% 3.3%


134

Appendix Table 3 continued RUI Mathematical Sciences Engineering Biological Sciences Social Sciences Associate Professors All S&E Physical Science Mathematical Sciences Engineering Biological Sciences Social Sciences Assistant Professors All S&E Physical Science Mathematical Sciences Engineering Biological Sciences Social Sciences Others All S&E Physical Science Mathematical Sciences Engineering Biological Sciences Social Sciences

1973 0.1% 0.1% 2.6% 4.1%

1979 1.7% 0.2% 4.1% 5.2%

1989 2.7% 1.0% 7.0% 11.8%

1995 3.2% 0.7% 11.5% 20.3%

6.0% 3.4% 0.4% 0.3% 6.9% 10.0%

7.6% 4.6% 5.3% 0.6% 8.1% 14.4%

17.8% 8.9% 14.6% 2.9% 20.0% 26.8%

19.4% 8.3% 9.0% 4.3% 25.4% 30.7%

9.4% 4.9% 0.9% 0.7% 10.9% 15.9%

18.9% 5.3% 11.2% 3.7% 15.8% 34.4%

25.8% 12.9% 14.1% 8.3% 33.0% 35.9%

32.0% 18.2% 22.3% 14.7% 39.2% 45.4%

19.5% 13.6% 1.8% 0.6% 25.9% 34.0%

19.1% 13.6% 10.0% 2.0% 25.3% 28.8%

30.8% 17.2% 20.4% 5.0% 34.0% 51.4%

29.9% 15.4% 24.8% 4.3% 35.9% 48.3%

1979 Men Women 7712 212 19 1544 13 502 1249 3 2068 46 2385 131

1989 Men Women 513 8265 1391 45 843 25 1435 6 2460 108 2301 329

1995 Men Women 6859 582 1104 94 4 639 1260 29 2059 216 1870 239

3783 571 585 592 1239 840

372 26 35 12 82 224

4179 422 380 977 1189 1250

947 55 49 21 237 585

3385 357 517 627 860 1027

932 10 76 37 325 502

3379 447 284 476 951 1268

708 37 44 12 210 405

2340 274 325 569 589 670

1046 43 58 35 317 600

1781 165 199 355 706 375

1089 76 120 45 327 521

RUn 1973 Men Women Full Professors 5891 144 All S&E Physical Science 1239 1 Mathematical Sciences 746 4 Engineering 711 Biological Sciences 1866 60 76 Social Sciences 1684 Associate Professors 261 All S&E 4019 14 Physical Science 717 Mathematical Sciences 763 5 Engineering 747 1 70 Biological Sciences 1228 150 Social Sciences 1046 Assistant Professors All S&E 3460 338 Physical Science 576 39 Mathematical Sciences 602 6 Engineering 532 3 Biological Sciences 873 104 Social Sciences 1002 172

135


Appendix Table 3 continued RUII 1973 Men Women

Others All S&E Physical Science Mathematical Sciences Engineering Biological Sciences Social Sciences

422 144 56 56 122 93

175 28

78 61

Percent Female by Faculty Rank Full Professors All S&E 2.4% Physical Science 0.1% Mathematical Sciences 0.5% 0.0% Engineering 3.1% Biological Sciences Social Sciences 4.3% Associate Professors All S&E 6.1% Physical Science 1.9% Mathematical Sciences 0.7% 0.1% Engineering Biological Sciences 5.4% Social Sciences 12.5% Assistant Professors All S&E 8.9% 6.3% Physical Science 1.0% Mathematical Sciences 0.6% Engineering Biological Sciences 10.6% Social Sciences 14.7% Others All S&E 29.3% Physical Science 16.3% Mathematical Sciences 0.0% Engineering 0.0% Biological Sciences 39.0% Social Sciences 39.6%

1979 Men Women 779 82 39 91 239 328

253 45 9 88 111

1989 Men Women

1995 Men Women

1208 224 38 31 434 481

524 46

1161 287

9 218 251

181 370 323

541 96 26 163 256

2.7% 1.2% 2.5% 0.2% 2.2% 5.2%

5.8% 3.1% 2.9% 0.4% 4.2% 12.5%

7.8% 7.8% 0.6% 2.2% 9.5% 11.3%

9.0% 4.4% 5.6% 2.0% 6.2% 21.1%

18.5% 11.5% 11.4% 2.1% 16.6% 31.9%

21.6% 2.7% 12.8% 5.6% 27.4% 32.8%

17.3% 7.6% 13.4% 2.5% 18.1% 24.2%

30.9% 13.6% 15.1% 5.8% 35.0% 47.2%

37.9% 31.5% 37.6% 11.3% 31.7% 58.1%

24.5% 35.4% 18.8% 0.0% 26.9% 25.3%

30.3% 17.0% 0.0% 22.5% 33.4% 34.3%

31.8% 25.1% 100.0% 0.0% 30.6% 44.2%

1979 Men Women 23902 699 4598 50 2006 39 4232 8 212 5960 7209 394

1959 Men Women 34315 2145 6365 146 3521 99 6604 57 9149 614 9052 1233

Total RU 1973 Full Professors Men Women All S&E 19897 472 Physical Science 4006 23 Mathematical Sciences2755 6 Engineering 2654 2 Biological Sciences 6048 172 Social Sciences 5781 250

1995 Men Women 31779 3247 5607 247 3243 89 6215 62 9376 1168 7611 1699

136


Appendix Table 3 continued 1973 Men Women Associate Professors All S&E 11569 Physical Science 1813 Mathematical Sciences2163 Engineering 2061 Biological Sciences 3586 Social Sciences 3217 Assistant Professors All S&E 9746 Physical Science 1590 Mathematical Sciences1590 Engineering 1433 Biological Sciences 2800 2622 Social Sciences Others All S&E 2893 Physical Science 1134 Mathematical Sciences 436 Engineering 406 Biological Sciences 803 Social Sciences 449

1979 Men Women

1959 Men Women

1995 Men Women

740 53 11 5 245 391

11462 1721 1449 2229 3441 2779

1000 81 83 22 276 549

14710 1809 1375 2859 4219 4553

3233 190 219 78 995 1794

15492 2141 1877 3209 4413 3976

3838 172 211 154 1533 1806

992 91 15 9 339 478

9469 1390 1161 1312 2809 2950

2125 90 155 44 558 1287

11123 1527 1155 2403 3304 2901

4101 228 194 202 1655 1847

10205 1490 1113 2240 3085 2364

5047 371 382 370 1863 2174

773 184 7 2 316 244

4404 1272 247 588 1187 1110

1110 232 32 10 409 427

8229 2182 456 1000 2879 1746

3650 452 107 60 1479 1587

10592 3134 644 1563 3180 2108

4558 615 238 62 1737 1925

Percent Female by Faculty Rank Full Professors All S&E 2.3% 0.6% Physical Science Mathematical Sciences 0.2% 0.1% Engineering Biological Sciences 2.8% 4.1% Social Sciences Associate Professors All S&E 6.0% 2.8% Physical Science 0.5% Mathematical Sciences 0.2% Engineering Biological Sciences 6.4% 10.8% Social Sciences Assistant Professors 9.2% All S&E 5.4% Physical Science Mathematical Sciences 0.9% Engineering 0.6% Biological Sciences 10.8% Social Sciences 15.4% Others 21.1% All S&E Physical Science 14.0% Mathematical Sciences 1.6% Engineering 0.5% 28.2% Biological Sciences 35.2% Social Sciences

2.8% 1.1% 1.9% 0.2% 3.4% 5.2%

5.9% 2.2% 2.7% 0.9% 6.3% 12.0%

9.3% 4.2% 2.7% 1.0% 11.1% 18.2%

8.0% 4.5% 5.4% 1.0% 7.4% 16.5%

18.0% 9.5% 13.7% 2.7% 19.1% 28.3%

19.9% 7.4% 10.1% 4.6% 25.8% 31.2%

18.3% 6.1% 11.8% 3.2% 16.6% 30.4%

26.9% 13.0% 14.4% 7.8% 33.4% 38.9%

33.1% 19.9% 25.6% 14.2% 37.7% 47.9%

20.1% 15.4% 11.5% 1.7% 25.6% 27.8%

30.7% 17.2% 19.0% 5.7% 33.9% 47.6%

30.1% 16.4% 27.0% 3.8% 35.3% 47.7%

Engineering 1979 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ. 1989 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ.

I IT

I IT

Mathematical Science 1979 Survey Research Univ. I Research Univ. IT 1959 Survey Research Univ. I Research Univ. IT 1995 Survey Research Univ. I Research Univ. IT

Physical Science 1979 Survey Research Univ. I Research Univ. IT 1989 Survey Research Univ. I Research Univ. IT 1995 Survey Research Univ. I Research Univ. IT

970 236

420 186

1389 549

2

15 7

38 25

972 236

435 193

1427 574

2664 863

1614 490

1393 576

2703 918

2039 1249

10 2674 2 865

11 2540 5 989

69 28

1545 462

2529 984

48 28

108 30

2595 888

1345 548

87 38

1952 1211

187 115

2556 526

3299 821

65 8

44

22

141 8

1530 394

2342 1188

1570 660

169 30

1401 630

3364 829

2386 1210

1671 402

1617 664

2743 641

3300 585

2418 831

138 61

1479 603

276 46

191 58

3024 539

2227 773

3214 1238

1507 502

1499 389

3133 549

2435 551

250 61

293 95

243 64

411 52

434 95

3464 1299

1800 597

1742 453

3544 601

646

2869

RESEARCH UNIVERSITY FACULTY BY COHORT SO-cohort 60-cohort 70-cohort 80-cohort Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Appendix Table 4

983 166

1554 160

241 1224 113 279

379 1933 106 266

90-cohort Male Female Total

(§-

3

~

w .....,

[il"

::::l .... in'

iii'

I"l

& ~

0

/tl ::::l

~

::::l

So

~

0

~

~

(JQ

::::l

r0

~

/tl

3

n 0

fD'

c:

Social Sciences 1979 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ. 1989 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ. 1995 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ.

Life Science 1979 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ. 1989 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ. 1995 Survey Research Univ. Research Univ.

I II

I II

I II

I II

I II

I II

1995 Survey Research Univ. I Research Univ. II

2082 862

2038 977

125 60

2207 922

142 2180 44 1021

SO-cohort Male Female Total

3255 1353

2634 1581

3199 1104

2542 1485

2766 1588

378 153

334 192 3633 1506

2968 1773

340 3539 118 1222

224 103


3740 1664

4399 1933

4075 2233

5421 1279

5231 1783

3876 1910

2928 688

6414 1612

6332 2046

4500 2190

2937 700

1572 316

5312 1980

1788 6187 596 2529

1314 5389 601 2834

993 333

1101 263

624 280

9 12


Appendix Table 4 continued

3904 863

6833 1930 6044 1414

2140 551

8180 1730

7272 1771

3645 828

2465 987

2733 447

5447 1283

4368 943

2382 492

254 54

4890 1279

3391 774


1855 434

1852 498

2102 403

1775 3630 591 1025

1221 3073 225 723

274 2376 45 448


w

II>

c: R" 0 3 (1)

0

~

c:

..c

(1)

:::l

C

~

~.

;;lJ

~

c:

m

..c

co

1938 606 1206 3015 2944

3163 1893 3513 4027 4215

3000 2082 3530 5786 6308

Late Stage Physical Sciences Mathematical Sciences Engineering Life Sciences Social Sciences

Middle Stage Physical Sciences Mathematical Sciences Engineering Life Sciences Social Sciences

Early Stage Physical Sciences Mathematical Sciences Engineering Life Sciences Social Sciences

249 199 66 904 1915

125 76 16 327 526

63 22 2 186 185

Women

1979

Men

2986 1888 4452 6169 5311

3563 2031 4120 7014 6332 529 307 311 2874 3452

1364 2384

73

322 199

138 97 12 458 531

Women

1989 3483 2007 3527 4303 4608

Men

1714 1149 2505 2350 2289

3682 2009 4165 6730 4767

2366

1446

485 354 319

463 388 308 3180 2691

302 149 21 1326 1888

Women

1995 3082 1924 3616 6700 5404

Men

CAREER STAGE IN EACH SURVEY

Appendix Table 5

1989

1995

7.7% 8.7% 1.8% 13.5% 23.3%

3.8% 3.9% 0.5% 7.5% 11.1%

3.1% 3.5% 0.2% 5.8% 5.9%

15.0% 14.0% 6.5% 31.8% 39.4%

8.3% 8.9% 1.7% 16.3% 27.4%

3.8% 4.6% 0.3% 9.6% 10.3%

22.1 23.6% 11.3% 38.1% 50.8%

1.2% 16.2% 6.9% 32.1% 36.1%

8.9% 7.2% 0.6% 6.5% 25.9%

Percent Female

1979

~

0

w

1.0

.....

r;;-

Vi'

ro' ;a

n

Vl

eI.

S

CJ

:J

/1)

3

~

:J

0

~

CJ

';';

~

OQ

:J

0

,.....

III

/1)

3

n 0

/1)

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities (Innovations in Science Education and Technology)

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

equal rites

equal rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities (Innovations in Science Education and Technology)

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

equal rites

equal rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Equal Rites

Recommend Documents