Advertisement

How Research, Teaching, and Leadership Roles are Recommended to Male and Female Engineering Faculty Differently

  • Eugene JudsonEmail author
  • Lydia Ross
  • Kristi Glassmeyer
Article

Abstract

Across disciplines, male faculty spend more time on research than female faculty. Yet, women tend to teach and mentor students more hours than men (Misra et al. in Glob J Eng Educ 14(1):119–131, 2011). These disparities play pivotal roles in tenure and promotion decisions wherein research and leadership roles are most valued (Green in J Soc Work Educ 44(2):117–128, 2008). There is considerable evidence suggesting that implicit biases underpin some of these faculty roles differences, particularly in male-dominated disciplines, such as engineering. At the same time, there is limited evidence that, once aware of gender inequity, individuals will engage in bias correction in order to rectify prejudice. This study was designed to evaluate if implicit bias or bias correction could be detected when faculty considered the most appropriate roles for other faculty. Faculty from 50 colleges of engineering completed an activity wherein they assigned five fictitious engineering faculty characters to five assignments (one research, one leadership, and three teaching/advising roles). One version of the activity contained only male names; the other version was identical except for the change of the middle character’s name from male (Charlie) to female (Cathy). Results indicated that both men and women were significantly more likely to select Cathy for both the leadership and research positions over Charlie. Regression analysis of the Cathy Group data indicated respondents’ gender did not predict selection of Cathy to the leadership role; however, women were significantly more likely than men to select Cathy to do research.

Keywords

Gender Faculty Engineering Bias Job-sorting Bias correction Implicit bias Gender equity Higher education 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Division of Undergraduate Education (Grant No. 1524527).

References

  1. Alon, S., & Gelbgiser, D. (2011). The female advantage in college academic achievements and horizontal sex segregation. Social Science Research, 40(1), 107–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.007.Google Scholar
  2. Aron, D. C., Aucott, J. N., & Papp, K. K. (2000). Teaching awards and reduced departmental longevity: Kiss of death or kiss goodbye. What happens to excellent clinical teachers in a research intensive medical school? Medical Education Online, 5(1), 4313.  https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v5i.4313.Google Scholar
  3. Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. M. (2003). A national profile of academic women in research universities. In L. Hornig (Ed.), Equal rites, unequal outcomes: Women in American research universities (pp. 53–88). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. The American Economic Review, 107(3), 714–747.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M., & Cornelson, K. (2016). Gender based occupational segregation and sex differences in sensory, motor and spatial aptitudes (No. w22248). National Bureau of Economic Research.  https://doi.org/10.3386/w22248.Google Scholar
  6. Barone, C. (2011). Some things never change: Gender segregation in higher education across eight nations and three decades. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 157–176.Google Scholar
  7. Bernardi, R. A., & Guptill, S. T. (2008). Social desirability response bias, gender, and factors influencing organizational commitment: An international study. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 797–809.Google Scholar
  8. Bird, S., Litt, J. S., & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work”. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 194–206.Google Scholar
  9. Blau, F. D., Brummund, P., & Liu, A. Y. H. (2013). Trends in occupational segregation by gender 1970–2009: Adjusting for the impact of changes in the occupational coding system. Demography, 50(2), 471–492.Google Scholar
  10. Bradley, K., & Charles, M. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976.  https://doi.org/10.1086/595942.Google Scholar
  11. Bug, A. (2010). Swimming against the unseen tide. Physics World, 23(8), 16–17.Google Scholar
  12. Carnes, M., Bartels, C. M., Isaac, C., Kaatz, A., & Kolehmainen, C. (2015). Why is John more likely to become department chair than Jennifer? Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 126, 197–214.Google Scholar
  13. Carrigan, C., Quinn, K., & Riskin, E. A. (2011). The gendered division of labor among STEM faculty and the effects of critical mass. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(3), 131–146.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021831.Google Scholar
  14. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15(3), 75–141.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614541236.Google Scholar
  15. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052.Google Scholar
  16. Chien, Y. W., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Hsiao, C. C. (2014). The flexible correction model: Bias correction guided by naïve theories of bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(6), 275–286.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12105.Google Scholar
  17. Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 291–302.Google Scholar
  18. Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), 73–93.Google Scholar
  19. Ding, W. W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. E. (2006). Gender differences in patenting in the academic life sciences. Science, 313(5787), 665–667.Google Scholar
  20. Dominici, F., Fried, L. P., & Zeger, S. L. (2009). So few women leaders. Academe, 95(4), 25–27.Google Scholar
  21. Duch, J., Zeng, X. H. T., Sales-Pardo, M., Radicchi, F., Otis, S., Woodruff, T. K., et al. (2012). The possible role of resource requirements and academic career-choice risk on gender differences in publication rate and impact. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51332.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051332.Google Scholar
  22. Easterly, D. M., & Ricard, C. S. (2011). Conscious efforts to end unconscious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research Administration, 42(1), 61–73.Google Scholar
  23. Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777129.Google Scholar
  24. Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Washington, DC: Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies.Google Scholar
  25. Fox, M. F. (2003). Gender, faculty, and doctoral education in science and engineering. In L. Hornig (Ed.), Equal rites, unequal outcomes: Women in American research universities (pp. 91–109). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705046630.Google Scholar
  27. Gangone, L. M., & Lennon, T. (2014). Benchmarking women’s leadership in academia and beyond. In K. Longman & S. Madsen (Eds.), Women and leadership in higher education (pp. 3–22). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Glass, C., & Minnotte, K. L. (2010). Recruiting and hiring women in STEM fields. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(4), 218–229.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020581.Google Scholar
  29. Green, R. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: The relative importance of teaching, scholarship, and service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 117–128.  https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2008.200700003.Google Scholar
  30. Gross, E. (1968). Plus ça change…? The sexual structure of occupations over time. Social Problems, 16(2), 198–208.Google Scholar
  31. Handley, I. M., Brown, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Smith, J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(43), 13201–13206.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510649112.Google Scholar
  32. Hannum, K. M., Muhly, S. M., Shockley-Zalabak, P. S., & White, J. S. (2015). Women leaders within higher education in the United States: Supports, barriers, and experiences of being a senior leader. Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, 65–75.Google Scholar
  33. Hart, J., & Cress, C. M. (2008). Are women faculty just “worry-warts?” Accounting for gender differences in self-reported stress. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1–2), 175–193.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10911350802171120.Google Scholar
  34. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.Google Scholar
  35. Holliday, E. B., Jagsi, R., Wilson, L. D., Choi, M., Thomas, C. R., Jr., & Fuller, C. D. (2014). Gender differences in publication productivity, academic position, career duration and funding among US academic radiation oncology faculty. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(5), 767–773.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.07.1460.Google Scholar
  36. Howe-Walsh, L., & Turnbull, S. (2016). Barriers to women leaders in academia: Tales from science and technology. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 415–428.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.929102.Google Scholar
  37. Jackson, J. (2004). The story is not in the numbers: Academic socialization and diversifying the faculty. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 172–185.Google Scholar
  38. Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5.Google Scholar
  39. Judson, E., Ross, L., Middleton, J. A., & Krause, S. J. (2017). Measuring engineering faculty views about benefits and costs of using student-centered strategies. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 7(2), 65–78.Google Scholar
  40. Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2014). Stuck in the out-group: Jennifer can’t grow up, Jane’s invisible, and Janet’s over the hill. Journal of Women’s Health, 23(6), 481–484.  https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.4766.Google Scholar
  41. Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046–1054.Google Scholar
  42. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684.Google Scholar
  43. Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047.Google Scholar
  44. Manfredi, S. (2017). Increasing gender diversity in senior roles in HE: Who is afraid of positive action? Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci7020019.Google Scholar
  45. Massy, W. F., & Wilger, A. K. (1995). Improving productivity: What faculty think about it—And it’s effect on quality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(4), 10–20.Google Scholar
  46. McCullough, L. (2011). Women’s Leadership in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Barriers to participation. Forum on Public Policy Online, 2011(2). Retrieved from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/vol2011.no2/womensstudies2011vol2.html.
  47. Meyers, K. L., Ohland, M. W., Pawley, A. L., Silliman, S. E., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Factors relating to engineering identity. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 14(1), 119–131.Google Scholar
  48. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe97(1) Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/ivory-ceiling-service-work.
  49. Mitchell, S. M., & Hesli, V. L. (2013). Women don’t ask? Women don’t say no? Bargaining and service in the political science profession. PS: Political Science & Politics, 46(02), 355–369.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513000073.Google Scholar
  50. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.Google Scholar
  51. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Molenda, A. K., & Cramer, C. R. (2015). Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 194–209.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314565777.Google Scholar
  52. Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016. NCES 2016-007. National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  53. National Research Council. (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., … & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology18(1), 36–88.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053.
  55. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & White, P. H. (1998). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social Cognition, 16(1), 93–113.Google Scholar
  56. Powell, A., Dainty, A., & Bagilhole, B. (2012). Gender stereotypes among women engineering and technology students in the UK: lessons from career choice narratives. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(6), 541–556.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2012.724052.Google Scholar
  57. Rose, G. L. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 53–80.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-6289-4.Google Scholar
  58. Ross, L., & Judson, E. (2018). Gender-based differences in faculty members’ view and use of student-centered learning strategies. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 9(3), 205–220. Retrieved from http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/viewFile/513/871.
  59. Russell, C. (2009). A systemic framework for managing e-learning adoption in campus universities: Individual strategies in context. ALT-J, 17(1), 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v17i1.10771.Google Scholar
  60. Sheltzer, J. M., & Smith, J. C. (2014). Elite male faculty in the life sciences employ fewer women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(28), 10107–10112.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403334111.Google Scholar
  61. Shepherd, S. (2017). Why are there so few female leaders in higher education: A case of structure or agency? Management in Education, 31(2), 82–87.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020617696631.Google Scholar
  62. Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. (2000). Gendered meanings of commitment from high technology engineering managers in the United Kingdom and Sweden. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00089.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, W. (2008). Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey Response behavior (Research Report). San Jose, CA: San Jose State University. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501717.pdf.
  64. Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41(7), 509–528.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018839203698.Google Scholar
  65. Thompson, L. D., Barker, L. J., Manco Powell, R., Brawner, C. E., & McKlin, T. (2012). Initiatives to support systemic change for women in undergraduate computing. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 163–164). ACM.Google Scholar
  66. Trix, F., & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191–220.Google Scholar
  67. Van Anders, S. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(5), 1177–1213.Google Scholar
  68. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(17), 5360–5365.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418878112.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, R. (2012). Why are associate professors so unhappy?. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Are-Associate-Professors/132071/.
  70. Xie, Y., Shauman, K. A., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes (Vol. 26, No. 73.4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Yoder, B. L. (2016). Engineering by the Numbers. In American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/15EngineeringbytheNumbersPart1.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations