National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$48.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty (2010)
Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine (CWSEM)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)

Citation Manager

. "2 Status of Women in Academic Science and Engineering in 2004 and 2005." Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
33
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty

In 2005, 37.7 percent of all S&E doctorate degrees went to women. Women were awarded almost 50 percent of Ph.D.s granted in the biological sciences (National Science Foundation, 2006).

FACULTY REPRESENTATION

Despite these encouraging numbers, the number and percentage of women faculty had yet to match these gains. While noticeably increasing throughout S&E disciplines, women continued to be underrepresented among academic faculty relative to the number of women receiving S&E degrees (Nelson and Rogers, 2005). As Table 2-1 shows, in 2003, women comprised between 6 and 29 percent of senior faculty (full and associate professors) in S&E. The largest percentage of full and associate professors was found in the life sciences, while the lowest was in engineering.

Women were more likely to be assistant professors, and as shown in Table 2-2, comprised between 18 and 45 percent of assistant professors in S&E.10 Again, the largest percentage of female faculty was in the life sciences, and the lowest was in engineering.

These aggregate proportions masked two noteworthy phenomena. First, some departments had greater success in recruiting, retaining, and advancing female faculty than others. Examinations of specific department rosters continued to turn up examples of departments with no female faculty (e.g., Ivie et al., 2003; Nelson and Rogers, 2005).11 Second, some types of higher education institutions had done better at recruiting, retaining, and advancing female faculty than others. Female science faculty were more likely to be employed by community colleges or institutions that did not offer a doctoral degree, rather than at the large research universities (Nettles et al., 2000; Schneider, 2000). For example, in mathematics in 2005, the percentage of female, full-time, tenured or tenure-track faculty at doctorate-granting institutions was 11 percent; at master’s-granting institutions it was 24 percent; and at bachelor’s-granting institutions it was 25 percent (Kirkman et al., 2006).

10

Other studies come to similar conclusions. For example, women comprised only 14 percent of all faculty in astronomy in 2003 (Ivie, 2004) and 13 percent of all faculty in physics in 2006 (Dresselhaus, 2007). In mathematics in 2005, only 11 percent of full-time, tenure-track or tenured faculty in doctoral departments were women, while 24 percent of non-tenure-track, full-time faculty were women (Kirkman et al., 2006). In engineering, only 11.3 percent of tenured or tenure-track faculty members were women in 2006 (Gibbons, 2007). It should be noted, though, that over time, these percentages are slowly rising.

11

In 2006, all of the top 50 chemistry departments had at least one woman on faculty (Marasco, 2006). Continuing the examination of chemistry, for 30 Research I institutions that hired at least five faculty during 1988 and 1997, the percentage of women among hires ranged from 50 percent in one case to zero percent in 8 cases. Some departments hired a greater proportion of women than might be expected in comparison to the proportion of women in the doctoral pool, though in most cases, the proportion of women hired was lower (NAS, NAE, and IOM, 2007).

Page
33
Front Matter (R1-R18)
Summary (1-14)
1 Introduction (15-30)
2 Status of Women in Academic Science and Engineering in 2004 and 2005 (31-38)
3 Gender Differences in Academic Hiring (39-69)
4 Professional Activities, Institutional Resources, Climate, and Outcomes (70-115)
5 Gender Differences in Tenure and Promotion (116-152)
6 Key Findings and Recommendations (153-168)
Appendixes (169-170)
Appendix 1-1: Biographical Information on Committee Members (171-177)
Appendix 1-2: List of Research I Institutions (178-178)
Appendix 1-3: Committee Meeting Agenda (179-180)
Appendix 1-4: The Surveys (181-188)
Appendix 1-5: Survey Instruments (189-215)
Appendix 1-6: Departments in Survey (216-248)
Appendix 2-1: Review of Literature and Relevant Research (249-266)
Appendix 2-2: Previous Research on Factors Contributing to Gender Differences Among Faculty (267-274)
Appendix 3-1: Review of Literature and Research on Factors Associated with a Higher Proportion of Female Applicants (275-283)
Appendix 3-2: Estimated Adjusted Mean Effects and Differences for the Probability That There Are No Female Applicants (284-284)
Appendix 3-3: Estimated Adjusted Mean Effects and Differences Based on the Modeled Probability of the Percentage of Applicants That Are Female (285-286)
Appendix 3-4: Estimated Adjusted Mean Effects and Differences Based on the Modeled Probability of at Least One Female Candidate Interviewed (287-288)
Appendix 3-5: Doctoral Degrees Awarded by All Doctoral-Granting Institutions, by Field, Gender, and Year (289-289)
Appendix 3-6: Doctoral Degrees Awarded by Discipline and Gender for Research I Institutions, 1999-2003 (290-290)
Appendix 3-7: Marginal Mean and Variance of Transformed Response Variables (291-294)
Appendix 3-8: Main Considerations for Taking a Position by Number of Respondents Saying "Yes" (295-295)
Appendix 4-1: Distribution of Undergraduate Course Load for Faculty by Gender and Discipline (296-297)
Appendix 4-2: Percentage of Faculty Members Who Do No Graduate Teaching (298-298)
Appendix 4-3: Percentage of Faculty Members Receiving a Reduced Teaching Load When Hired (299-299)
Appendix 4-4: Percentage of Faculty Members Who Served on an Undergraduate Thesis or Honors Committee (300-300)
Appendix 4-5: Percentage of Faculty Members Who Served on and Chaired an Undergraduate Thesis or Honors Committee (301-301)
Appendix 4-6: Distribution of Number of Graduate Thesis or Honors Committees for Research I Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty: Men/Women (302-302)
Appendix 4-7: Percentage of Time Spent in Administration or Committee Work on Campus and Service to the Profession Outside the University for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty at Research I Institutions: Men/Women (303-303)
Appendix 4-8: Distribution of Number of Service Committees for Research I Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty: Men/Women (304-304)
Appendix 4-9: Mean Salary by Gender and Professorial Rank for Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions (305-305)
Appendix 4-10: Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions Receiving Summer Support (306-306)
Appendix 4-11: Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions Receiving Travel Funds (307-307)
Appendix 4-12: Median Square Footage of Lab Space of Faculty Who Report Doing Experimental Work (308-308)
Appendix 4-13: Faculty Who Have Received More Lab Space Since Hire (Values Are Percentages) (309-309)
Appendix 4-14: Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions Receiving Sufficient Equipment (310-310)
Appendix 4-15: Number of Postdoctorate Students for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions (presented by Men and Women) (311-311)
Appendix 4-16: Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions Receiving Sufficient Clerical Support (312-312)
Appendix 4-17: Percentage of Faculty Members Stating That They Had a Mentor (313-313)
Appendix 4-18: Distribution of the Number of Graduate Students for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions (presented by Men and Women) (314-314)
Appendix 4-19: Mean Number of Articles Published in Refereed Journals (sole and co-authored) Over the Past 3 Years for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty in Research I Institutions (315-315)
Appendix 4-20a: Estimated Probability of Having Grant Funding by Discipline, Gender, and Whether the Faculty Member Has an Assigned Mentor - Assistant Professors Only (316-316)
Appendix 4-20b: Estimated Probability of Having Grant Funding by Discipline, Gender, and Whether the Faculty Member Has an Assigned Mentor - Associate Professors Only (317-317)
Appendix 4-21: Percentage of Faculty Missing Salary Data by Gender and Discipline (318-318)
Appendix 4-22: Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty at Research I Institutions That Were Nominated for at Least One Award (319-319)
Appendix 4-23: Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Research I Faculty with Offers to Leave (320-320)
Appendix 4-24: Percentage of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty at Research I Institutions Planning to Leave or Retire (321-321)
Appendix 5-1: Knowledge of Tenure Procedures by Gender, Rank, and Presence of a Mentor (322-323)
Appendix 5-2: Detailed Tenure Information from Departmental Survey (324-324)
Appendix 5-3: Time Spent in Both Assistant and Associate Professorships (325-325)
Appendix 5-4: Years Between Starting Employment and Achieving Associate Professor Status, by Gender (326-326)
Appendix 5-5: Years Between Starting Employment and Achieving Full Professor Status, by Gender (327-327)
Appendix 5-6: Patterns of Nonresponse for Tenure Decisions (328-328)
Appendix 5-7: Patterns of Nonresponse for Promotion Decisions (329-329)
Bibliography (330-352)
Index (353-366)