Skip to main content

Gender diversity strategy in academic departments: exploring organizational determinants

Higher Education volume 69, pages 839–858 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Full inclusion of women into the academics remains a daunting challenge in the United States. The situation is particularly acute within science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields where the underrepresentation of women and their career disadvantages attract a great deal of attention. Based on a dataset combining a survey of department chairs and their performance indicators, we attempt to investigate organizational determinants of gender diversity strategies in the STEM fields. The findings suggest that academic departments’ commitment to a gender diversity strategy is related to their chairs’ administrative power and their assessment of current gender diversity status. Moreover, the commitment signals departments’ responses to social demands for more female faculty members. Nevertheless, women chairs prove less likely to pursue a gender diversity strategy, and more female faculty members hardly increase the likelihood of adopting such a strategy. The findings require care in interpretation because in cases where there are more women, the perceived need for adding women may be lessened. As such, gender diversity strategy may be compensatory in nature. The present study underscores the need for richer theories about recruitment of women STEM faculty and possibly, modifications in public policy for STEM human resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

References

  • Alison, M. K., & Pfeffer, J. (1991). Understanding the hiring of women and minorities in educational institutions. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, E. (2003). Constructing women’s status: Policy discourses of university women’s commission reports. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 44–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, Paul D., & Scott Long, J. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alper, J. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, 260(5106), 409–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aluko, Y. (2009). Work-family conflict and coping strategies adopted by women in academia. Gender & Behavior, 71, 2095–2123.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association of University Professor. (1966). Statement on government of colleges and universities.

  • Bird, S., Litt, J., & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work”. NWSA Journal, 16, 194–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Gaughan & Fay. (2013). Power to Do… What? Department Heads’ Power and Strategic Priorities.

  • Bradbury, M. D., & Kellough, J. E. (2008). Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 697–714.

  • Bratton, K. A., & Ray, L. P. (2002). Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 428–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710.

  • Burrelli, J. (2008). InfoBrief: Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. National Science Foundation, Science Resource Statistics: NSF 08-308. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08308/.

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. Stata Press, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, Texas 77845: A Stata Press Publication.

  • Caza, B. B., Tiedens, L., & Lee, F. (2011). Power becomes you: The effects of implicit and explicit power on the self. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 15–24. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P., Carr, P., Knight, S., Renfrew, M. R., Dunn, M. B., & Pololi, L. (2010). Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine. [Article]. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), 19(4), 799–805. doi:10.1089/jwh.2009.1591.

  • Dominici, F., Fried, L. P., & Zeger, S. L. (2009). So few women leaders. Academe, 95(4), 25–27.

  • Dobbin, F., & Jung, J. (2011). Board diversity and corporate performance: Filling in the gaps: Corporate board gender diversity and stock performance: The competence gap or institutional investor bias? North Carolina Law Review, 89, 809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2007). The architecture of inclusion: evidence from corporate diversity programs. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 30(2), 279–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? [Article]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 104–115. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., Van Den Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 315–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams—Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M., & Colatrella, C. (2006). Participation, performance, and advancement of women in academic science and engineering: What is at issue and why. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (1984). The changing nature of professional control. Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 1–20.

  • Gerber, L. G. (1997). Reaffirming the value of shared governance. Academe, 83(5), 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, K. (1985). Hard choices: How women decide about work, career and motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of management Review, 25(1), 63–81.

  • Guffey, J. S., Rampp, L. C., & Masters, M. M. (2000). Barriers and issues for shared-governance implementation in academia. The Educational Forum, 64(1), 14–19. doi:10.1080/00131729908984720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haake, U. (2011). Contradictory values in doctoral education—A study of gender composition in disciplines in Swedish academia. Higher Education, 62(1), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, N. (2002). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Paper presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings.

  • Hurtado, S., & DeAngelo, L. (2009). Keeping senior women at your college. Academe, 95(5), 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practice or best guess? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiser, L. R., Wilkins, V. M., Meier, K. J., & Holland, C. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, B. (1999). The institutional context of departmental prestige in American higher education. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 409–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, B., & Babchuk, N. (1997). The quest for institutional recognition: A longitudinal analysis of scholarly productivity and academic prestige among sociology departments. Social Forces, 76(4), 1495–1534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemelgor, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2001) Overcoming isolation: Women’s dilemmas in American academic science. Minerva: A Review of Science. Learning & Policy, 39(2), 153–174.

  • Labianca, G., Fairbank, J. F., Thomas, J. B., Gioia, D. A., & Umphress, E. E. (2001). Emulation in academia: Balancing structure and identity. Organization Science, 12(3), 312–330.

  • Laws, J. L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 1(1), 51–67.

  • Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological Review, 58(5), 703–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 233–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandleco, B. (2010). Women in academia: What can be done to help women achieve tenure? [Article]. Forum on Public Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table, 6(5), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschke, R., Laursen, S., Nielsen, J. M., & Rankin, P. (2007). Demographic inertia revisited: An immodest proposal to achieve equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T., & Alexander, A. (2008). Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on politics, 6(02), 215–233.

  • National Research Council. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2006). To recruit and advance: Women students and faculty in science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2010a). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2010b). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Report, M. I. T. (2011). A report on the status of women faculty in the schools of science and engineering at MIT. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, C. S., & Bell, L. C. (2003). From passive to active representation: The case of women congressional staff. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 65–82. doi:10.1093/jpart/mug008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V. (2004). The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the struggle to succeed. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, B. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty, administrators, and graduate students. Association of American Colleges, Washington, DC.

  • Silander, C., Haake, U., & Lindberg, L. (2013). The different worlds of academia: A horizontal analysis of gender equality in Swedish higher education. Higher Education, 66(2), 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Fox, M. F. (2008). Institutional transformation and the advancement of women faculty: The case of academic science and engineering. In W. G. Tierney, P. G. Altbach, B. Baez, A. E. Bayer, C. A. Ethington, M. K. McLendon, et al. (Eds.), Higher education (Vol. 23, pp. 73–103). Netherlands: Springer.

  • Sowa, J. E., & Selden, S. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockard, J., Greene, J., Lewis, P., & Richmond, G. (2008). Promoting gender equity in academic departments: A study of department heads in top-ranked chemistry departments. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 14(1), 1–27.

  • Sturm, S. (2006). The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 29(2), 247–334.

  • Sturm, S. (2007). The architecture of inclusion: interdisciplinary insights on pursuing institutional citizenship. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 30, 409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, X. H., & Gaughan, M. (2014). Inclusion of women academics into American universities: analysis of women status reports. Higher Education Policy. (forthcoming).

  • Tucker, A. (1984). Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

  • Van Anders, S. M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 51(9–10), 511–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, V. M. (2007). Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 77–94.

  • Wilkins, V. M., & Keiser, L. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 87–102. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender & Society, 5(2), 178–192.

  • Youn, T. I. K., & Price, T. M. (2009). Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and promotion rules in comprehensive institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 80(2), 204–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1970). Stratification in American science. Sociological Inquiry, 40(2), 235–257. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1970.tb01010.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The data on which this research is based were supported by National Science Foundation CAREER Grant REC 0447878/0710836, “University Determinants of Women’s Academic Career Success” (Monica Gaughan, Principal Investigator) and NSF grant SBR 9818229, “Assessing R and D Projects’ Impacts on Scientific and Technical Human Capital Development” (Barry Bozeman, Principal Investigator). The views reported here do not necessarily reflect those of National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Xuhong Su

  2. Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Japera Johnson & Barry Bozeman

Authors
  1. Xuhong Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Japera Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuhong Su.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Variable construction
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, X., Johnson, J. & Bozeman, B. Gender diversity strategy in academic departments: exploring organizational determinants. High Educ 69, 839–858 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9808-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9808-z

Keywords

  • Gender diversity strategy
  • Female department chairs
  • Power of department chairs
  • Representation of female faculty