Gender Issues

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 50–67 | Cite as

Gender, household labor, and scholarly productivity among university professors

Articles

Abstract

In the present paper, we use data collected from 673 faculty members at one research university to describe the division of household labor among academics and explore the relationship between household labor and scholarly productivity. The analyses demonstrate that domestic labor is distributed along relatively traditional lines among academics, reflecting the continued traditionalism found in the general population regarding house-hold labor and child care. Women college-professors shoulder considerably more house-hold labor than do their male colleagues—particularly when they are married and when there are children in the home. We hypothesized that the gender discrepancies in house-hold labor we found would translate into differences in scholarly productivity; however, this was the case only among tenure-track faculty with children in the home.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, Gary S. 1985. “Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor” Journal of Labor Economics 3: 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bianchi, Suzanne M., Melissa A. Milkie, Liana C. Sayer, and John P. Robinson. 2000. “Is Anyone Doing the Housework? Trends in the Gender Division of Household Labor.” Social Forces 79: 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bielby, Denise D. and William T. Bielby. 1988. “She Works Hard for the Money: Household Responsibilities and the Allocation of Work Effort.” American Journal of Sociology 93: 1031–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bittman, Michael and Judy Wajcman. 2000. “The Rush Hour: The Character of Leisure Time and Gender Equity.” Social Forces 79 (1): 165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brines, Julie. 1993. “The Exchange Value of Housework.” Rationality and Society 5: 302–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brines, Julie. 1994. “Economic Dependency, Gender and the Division of Labor at Home.” American Journal of Sociology 100: 652–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleman, D. and S. E. Isoahola. 1993. “Leisure and Health—The Role of Social Support and Self-Determination.” Journal of Leisure Research 25 (2): 111–128.Google Scholar
  8. Coltrane, Scott. 2000. “Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 1208–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coser, Lewis A. 1974. Greedy Institutions. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coser, Rose Laub. 1991. In Defense of Modernity: Role Complexity and Individual Autonomy. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coser, Rose Laub, and Lewis A. Coser. 1974. “The Housewife and Her Greedy Family.” In L. Coser 1974: 89–100.Google Scholar
  12. Coser, Rose Laub, and Gerald Rokoff. 1971. “Women in the Occupational World.” Social Problems 18: 535–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coverman, Shelley. 1983. “Gender, Domestic Labor Time, and Wage Inequality.” American Sociological Review 48: 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta, S. 1999. “The Effects of Marital Status Transitions on Men’s Housework Performance.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61: 700–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hersch, Joni. 1991. “Male-Female Differences in Hourly Wages: The Role of Human Capital, Working Conditions, and Housework.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44: 746–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hersch, J. and Leslie S. Stratton. 1997. “Housework, Fixed Effects, and Wages of Married Workers.” Journal of Human Resources 32: 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hertz, Rosanna. 1986. More Equal Than Others: Women and Men in Dual-Career Marriages. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  18. Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1997. The Time Bind. NY: Holt.Google Scholar
  19. Hochschild, Arlie. 1989. The Second Shift. NY: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  20. Hundley G. 2000. “Male/female earnings differences in self-employment: The effects of marriage, children, and the household division of labor.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review 4 (1): 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 1989. “The Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Wave XX.” Ann Arbor. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  22. Iwasaki, Y. and B. J. A. Smale. 1998. “Longitudinal Analyses of the Relationships among Life Transitions, Chronic Health Problems, Leisure, and Psychological Well-Being.” Leisure Sciences 20 (1): 25–52.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, E. L. and K. A. Henderson. 1995. “Gender-Based Analysis of Leisure Constraints.” Leisure Sciences 17 (1): 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamo, Yoshinori. 2000. “‘He Said, She Said’: Assessing discrepancies in Husbands’ and Wives’ Reports on the Division of Household Labor.” Social Science Research 29: 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katchadourian, Herant, and John Boli. 1994. Cream of the Crop: The Impact of Elite Education in the Decade After College. NY: Basic.Google Scholar
  26. Kay, Tess. 1998. “Having it all or Doing it all? The Construction of Women’s Lifestyles in Time-Crunched Households.” Society and Leisure 21: 435–454.Google Scholar
  27. Kirkcaldy, B. D., R. J. Shephard, and C. L. Cooper. 1993. “Relationships between Type-A Behavior, Work, and Leisure.” Personality and Individual Differences 15 (1): 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landry, Bart. 2000. Black Working Wives: Pioneers of the American Family Revolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Luxton, Meg, and June Corman. 2001. Getting By In Hard Times: Gendered Labour at Home and On the Job. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  30. Munson, W. W. and M. L. Savickas. 1998. “Relation between Leisure and Career Development of College Students.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 53 (2): 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nock, Steven L. and Paul William Kingston. 1989. “The Division of Leisure and Work.” Social Science Quarterly 70: 24–39.Google Scholar
  32. Ohio University. 1999. Report prepared by the Ohio University Commission on the Status of Women. Ohio University.Google Scholar
  33. Ponde, M. P. and V. S. Santana. 2000. “Participation in Leisure Activities: Is it a Protective Factor for Women’s Mental Health?” Journal of Leisure Research 32 (4): 457–472.Google Scholar
  34. Robinson, John. 1977. How Americans Use Time. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  35. Robinson, John. 1988. “Who’s Doing the Housework?” American Demographics 10: 24–28, 63.Google Scholar
  36. Sanchez, Laura, and Elizabeth Thompson. 1997. “Becoming Mothers and Fathers: Parenthood, Gender, and the Division of Labor.” Gender and Society 11: 747–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shelton, Beth Ann. 1992. “Women, Men and Time: Gender Differences in Paid Work, Housework and Leisure.” (Contributions in Women’s Studies 127). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  38. Suitor, J. Jill, and Rebecca S. Carter. “Jocks, Nerds, Babes and Thugs. A Research Note on Regional Differences in Adolescent Gender Norms.” Gender Issues 17: 87–101.Google Scholar
  39. Sullivan, Oriel. 1997. “Time Waits for No (Wo)Man: An Investigation of the Gendered Experience of Domestic Time.” Sociology—The Journal of the British Sociological Association 31 (2): 221–239.Google Scholar
  40. Sweet, James A and Larry L. Bumpass. 1993. A National Survey of Families and Households. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
  41. University of Wisconsin. 1999. Report prepared by the University of Wisconsin Commission on the Status of Women. Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  42. Yogev, Sara. 1981. “Do Professional Women Have Egalitarian Marital Relationships?” Journal of Marriage and the Family November: 865–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang, Cui-Xia and John E. Farley. 1995. “Gender and the Distribution of Household Work: A Comparison of Self-Reports by Female College Faculty in the United States and China.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 26: 195–205.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge

Personalised recommendations