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

. "3 Gender Differences in Academic Hiring." 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
54
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

departments are on average inviting more women to interview than would be expected if gender were not a factor, or women who apply to tenure-track or tenured positions in research-intensive institutions are, on average, well qualified. It is important to note that these higher rates of success do not imply favoritism, but may be explained by the possibility that only the strongest female candidates applied for Research I positions. This self-selection by female candidates would be consistent with the lower rates of application by women to these positions.

For tenured positions, the expected percentage of interview pools with no women are 18, 24, 35, 62, 44, and 35 percent for biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering, mathematics, and physics, respectively. The situation for tenured positions is much less clear. Electrical engineering, mathematics, and physics have smaller all-male interview pools than their probability pools. This is particularly true for electrical engineering, which had male-only interview pools 42 percent of the time compared to a probability of 62 percent. However, civil engineering, chemistry, and biology had larger all-male interview pools than expected, with chemistry being the most notable. Fifty percent of the interview pools for tenured positions in chemistry were all-male, while the probability value was 24 percent. This finding highlights the importance of disaggregating survey data by discipline.

Factors Associated with a Higher Percentage of Female Interviews

As with the analysis of applications, the analysis of interviews focused on departmental and institutional variables. Most of the factors in the applicant model are also used here: discipline; departmental climate, as measured by female faculty; female faculty on the search committee and family-friendly policies; public versus private universities; and prestige. Much of the literature on making hiring more equitable focuses on bringing actors with a broader view from outside the department into the decision making, so we expect intervention by a dean might also be positively related to the probability of interviewing a woman.

Because departments draw from the pool of applicants in deciding whom to interview, this analysis controls for the percentage of applications from women—the dependent variable from the last model. We expect a positive relationship between the percentage of applications from women and the percentage of interviewees who are women.

Statistical Analysis

The percentage of women in the interview pool appears to exceed the percentage of female applicants in all areas. We now investigate whether the percentage of women in the interview pool is associated with the institutional, departmental, and position-level characteristics described earlier and with two additional predictors: the percentage of female applicants and an indicator of whether the composition

Page
54
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)