Advertisement

Academic Capitalism and the Faculty Salary Gap

  • Jessica A. Johnson
  • Barrett J. Taylor
Article

Abstract

In the academic capitalist knowledge regime, institutions compete for prestige and funding. Reward structures emphasize science and engineering (S&E) fields for their potential to generate money and status. Masculine norms and male majority in S&E fields may create conditions for gender differences in faculty compensation. We explored the relationship between institutional S&E emphasis and the faculty salary gap at 130 public research universities. Findings suggest that the salary gap for full professors varies over time - decreasing at institutions with the greatest S&E emphasis and increasing at institutions with lower levels of S&E emphasis. Context matters when exploring gender differences in institutional rewards.

Keywords

Academic capitalism Gender Faculty rewards Science and engineering 

References

  1. Acker, J. (1989). Doing comparable worth: Gender, class and pay equity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 139–158.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acker, J. (2006). Class questions: Feminist answers. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Ahmad, S. (2017). Family of future in the academy? Review of Educational Research, 87, 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Antonio, A. L., Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. M. (2000). Community service in higher education: A look at the nation's faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archibald, R. N., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does college cost so much? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Baldwin, R. G., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change, 40(5), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barbezat, D. A., & Hughes, J. W. (2005). Salary structure effects and the gender pay gap in academia. Research in Higher Education, 46, 621–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barringer, S. N. (2016). The changing finances of public higher education organizations: Diversity, change and discontinuity. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 46, 223–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beddoes, K., & Pawley, A. L. (2014). “Different people have different priorities”: Work–family balance, gender, and the discourse of choice. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 1573–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bellas, M. L. (1993). Faculty salaries: Still a cost of being female? Social Science Quarterly, 74, 62–75.Google Scholar
  13. Bellas, M. L. (1994). Comparable worth in academia: The effects on faculty salaries of the sex composition and labor-market conditions of academic disciplines. American Sociological Review, 59, 807–821.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2096369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bellas, M. L. (1997). Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries: Does gender bias play a role? The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 299–321.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2960043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Benschop, Y., & Brouns, M. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and Organization, 10, 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). CPI detailed report: Data for December 2011 [Data File]. Available from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm
  17. Callister, R. R. (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cama, M. G., Jorge, M. L., & Peña, F. J. A. (2016). Gender differences between faculty members in higher education: A literature review of selected higher education journals. Educational Research Review, 18, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Linear panel models: Basics. In Microeconometrics: Methods and applications (pp. 697–742). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell, C., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. (2013). Global status, intra-institutional stratification and organizational segmentation: A time-dynamic Tobit analysis of ARWU position among U.S. universities. Minerva, 51, 195–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9228-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. J. (2015). The rise of the postdoctorate and the restructuring of academic research. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 667–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cantwell, B., Taylor, B. J., & Johnson, N. (2018). Ordering the global field of academic science: Money, mission, and position. Studies in Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1506916
  24. Castilla, E. J. (2007). Longitudinal analysis of quantitative variables. In Dynamic analysis in the social sciences (pp. 44–129). London, England: Emerald.Google Scholar
  25. Cataldi, E.F., Fahimi, M., & Bradburn, E.M. (2005). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff in Fall 2003 (NCES 2005–172). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
  26. Creamer, E. G. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(2), 5–124.Google Scholar
  27. Demb, A., & Wade, A. (2012). Reality check: Faculty involvement in outreach & engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 83, 337–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Deutsch, F. M., & Yao, B. (2014). Gender differences in faculty attrition in the USA. Community, Work & Family, 17, 392–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eagan Jr., M. K., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with faculty productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 923–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elliott, M. (2008). Gender differences in the causes of work and family strain among academic faculty. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17, 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gilbert, A. (2009). Disciplinary cultures in mechanical engineering and materials science: Gendered/gendering practices? Equal Opportunities International, 28, 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gonzales, L. D. (2013). Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalizing ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. Review of Higher Education, 36, 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 85, 193–218.Google Scholar
  34. Gonzales, L. D., & Nuñez, A. M. (2014). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: Implications for academia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(31), 1–24.Google Scholar
  35. Griffin, K. A., & Reddick, R. J. (2011). Surveillance and sacrifice gender differences in the mentoring patterns of Black professors at predominantly White research universities. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1032–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jaquette, O., & Parra, E. E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. 29 (pp. 467–533). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lacy, T. A. (2015). Event history analysis: A primer for higher education researchers. In I. J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 71–91). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20, 754–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect expenditures within research universities? Research in Higher Education, 53, 614–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27, 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maranto, C. L., & Griffin, A. E. (2010). The antecedents of a “chilly climate” for women faculty in higher education. Human Relations, 64, 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marginson, S. (2012). The “public” contributions of universities in an increasingly global world. In B. Pusser, K. Kempner, S. Marginson, & I. Orodika (Eds.), Universities and the public sphere: Knowledge creation and state building in the era of globalization (pp. 7–26). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Marginson, S. (2016). Global stratification in higher education. In S. Slaughter & B. J. Taylor (Eds.), Higher education, stratification and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US and Canada (pp. 13–34). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mendoza, P. (2012). The role of context in academic capitalism: The industry-friendly department case. Journal of Higher Education, 83, 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Misra, J., Lundquist, J., Holmes, E. D., & Agiomavritis, S. (2009). Associate professors and gendered barriers to advancement. Retrieved from https://philosophy.ku.edu/sites/philosophy.ku.edu/files/docs/mentoring_documents/Gendered%20Barriers%20to%20Advancement.pdf
  46. National Science Board (2014). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. National Science Foundation (2016). NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates [Data file]. Available from https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar/
  48. O’Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. 22 (pp. 121–179). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. O’Meara, K. (2011). Inside the panopticon: Studying academic reward systems. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research 26 (pp. 161–220). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn't women's work count? The Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46–84.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2943903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perna, L. W. (2001). Sex differences in faculty salaries: A cohort analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rhoades, G. (2014). Extending academic capitalism by foregrounding academic labor. In B. Cantwell & I. Kauppinen (Eds.), Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (pp. 113–134). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Rosinger, K. O., Taylor, B. J., Coco, L., & Slaughter, S. (2016). Organizational segmentation and the prestige economy: Deprofessionalization in high- and low-resource departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 87, 27–54.  https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market. Higher Education, 63, 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the enterpreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  57. State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (2016). State higher education funding. Boulder, CO: SHEEO.Google Scholar
  58. Stephan, P. E. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tatum, H. E., Schwartz, B. M., Schimmoeller, P. A., & Perry, N. (2013). Classroom participation and student-faculty interactions: Does gender matter? The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 745–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taylor, B. J. (2016). The field dynamics of stratification among US research universities: The expansion of federal support for academic research, 2000-2008. In S. Slaughter & B. J. Taylor (Eds.), Stratification, privatization and vocationalization of higher education in the US and EU: Competitive advantage (pp. 59–80). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2018). Unequal higher education: Wealth, status and student opportunity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., & Slaughter, S. (2013). Quasi-markets in US higher education: Humanities emphasis and institutional revenues. The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 675–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2010). 2005 data file [Data file and code book]. Available from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/downloads.php
  64. Toutkoushian, R. K., & Conley, V. M. (2005). Progress for women in academe, yet inequities persist: Evidence from NSOPF:99. Research in Higher Education, 46, 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-6287-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary System (IPEDS) (2016). Custom files for 2003–2011 [Data files]. Available from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/selectVariables.aspx
  66. Umbach, P. D. (2007). Gender equity in the academic labor market: An analysis of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 48, 169–192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9043-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Volk, C. S., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. L. (2001). Models of institutional resource allocation: Mission, market, and gender. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 387–413 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2672889 Google Scholar
  69. Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Zhang, L. (2010). The use of panel data models in higher education policy studies. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 307–349). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Texas Health Science CenterFort WorthUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations