Skip to main content

Family Friendly Policies in STEM Departments: Awareness and Determinants

Research in Higher Education volume 57, pages 990–1009 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Focused on academic departments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in the United States, we attempt to map department chairs’ awareness of family friendly policies and investigate possible determinants of their knowledge levels. Based on a sample of STEM department chairs in American research universities, we find that chairs only have limited knowledge of family friendly policies and face different incentives and constraints in pursuing more. Chairs prove more committed to family friendly policies if departments embrace a diversity strategy. Those aspiring to move up in the administrative hierarchy are more likely to champion policies of unpaid family leave, spousal hiring assistance and workload reduction for family reasons, whereas female chairs advocate more of family leave and onsite childcare policies. Departments self-assessed with less desirable status prove more knowledgeable about spousal employment assistance policy. We call for contingent understanding of family friendly policies and conclude the study by discussing research implications and developing policy recommendations.

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)

Notes

  1. The thirteen items include: additional salary, summer money, research money, start-up money, research assistants, course reductions, teaching assistants, computing/software, laboratory space, laboratory supplies, spousal hiring assistance, moving expenses, and travel funds. Their inverse weights are operationalized as one minus the mean of each independent variable on the ground that those less adopted merit more weights due to their scarcity and those more adopted merit less weights.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association of University, P. (1966). Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities.

  • Anderson, D. M., Morgan, B. L., & Wilson, J. B. (2002). Perceptions of family-friendly policies: University versus corporate employees. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23(1), 73–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ann, F. (2000). Leading academic change: Essential roles for departmental chairs. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT1. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2), 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baughman, R., DiNardi, D., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2003). Productivity and wage effects of “family-friendly” fringe benefits. International Journal of Manpower, 24, 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Gaughan, M. (2013). Power to do…what? Department heads’ decision autonomy and strategic priorities. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 303–328. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9270-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 697–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in US higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). Classification of higher education.

  • Carroll, J. B. (1991). Career paths of department chairs: A national perspective. Research in Higher Education, 32(6), 669–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationlaity in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. (2002). Towards an organic perspective on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 561–594.

    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, 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). Diversity management: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21, 61–76. doi:10.1023/a:1005907602028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J. S., Siebert, W. S., & Wei, X. (2007). The implicit wage costs of family friendly work practices. Oxford Economic Papers.

  • Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: ERIC.

  • Honeycutt, T. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). Family friendly human resource policies, salary levels, and salient identity as predictors of organizational attraction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(2), 271–290.

    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.

  • Ingram, P., & Simons, T. (1995). Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1466–1482.

    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, 409–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. (1997). ‘Family friendly’employment policies: A route to changing organizational culture or playing about at the margins? Gender, Work & Organization, 4(1), 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. (2001). Restructuring workplace cultures: The ultimate work-family challenge? Women in Management Review, 16(1), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschke, R., Laursen, S., Nielsen, J. M., & Dunn-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 

  • Mayer, A. L., & Tikka, P. M. (2008). Family-friendly policies and gender bias in academia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4), 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige higher education: Handbook of theory and research. In: J. C. Smart (Ed.), (vol. 22, pp. 121–179): Springer, The Netherlands.

  • Meier, K. J., Wrinkle, R. D., & Polinard, J. L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1025–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research, 27(4), 555–574.

    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, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. (2011). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. In: J. P. Ostriker, C. V. Kuh & J. A. Voytuk (Eds.), National Academy of Sciences.

  • Newton, J. (2002). Barriers to effective quality management and leadership: Case study of two academic departments. Higher Education, 44(2), 185–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piercy, F., Giddings, V., Allen, K., Dixon, B., Meszaros, P., & Joest, K. (2005). Improving campus climate to support faculty diversity and retention: A pilot program for new faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 30(1), 53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poelmans, S. A., Chinchilla, N., & Cardona, P. (2003). The adoption of family-friendly HRM policies: Competing for scarce resources in the labour market. International Journal of Manpower, 24(2), 128–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, K., Lange, S. E., & Olswang, S. G. (2004). Family-friendly policies and the research university. Academe, 90(6), 32–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raabe, P. H. (1997). Work-family policies for faculty: How “career-and family-friendly” is academe. Academic Couples: Problems and Promises, 208–225.

  • Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(2), 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S. V., & Lane, E. O. N. (2002). Key barriers for academic institutions seeking to retain female scientists and engineers: Family-unfriendly policies. Low Numbers, stereotypes, and harassment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(2), 161–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Scheibl, F., & Dex, S. (1998). Should we have more family-friendly policies? European Management Journal, 16, 586–599.

    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, R. P. Perry, S. L. Thomas, B. Pusser, & E. S. John (Eds.), Higher education (Vol. 23, pp. 73–103). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  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)

  • Sturm, S. (2006). Architecture of Inclusion: Advancing Workplace Equity in Higher Education. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 29, 247–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, X., & Gaughan, M. (2014). Inclusion of women academics into American universities: Analysis of women status reports. Higher Education Policy, 27(4), 529–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, X., Johnson, J., & Bozeman, B. (2014). Gender diversity strategy in academic departments: Exploring organizational determinants. Higher Education, 1–20. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9808-z.

  • Sullivan, S. E., & Mainiero, L. A. (2007). The changing nature of gender roles, alpha/beta careers and worklife issues: Theory-driven implications for human resource management. Career Development International, 12(3), 238–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swody, C. A., & Powell, G. N. (2007). Determinants of employee participation in organizations’ family-friendly programs: A multi-level approach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, P. S., Simons, T., Andrews, A., & Rhee, J. (1995). The effects of gender composition in academic departments on faculty turnover. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), 562–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 87–102. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00243.

    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. School of Public Affairs and Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Barry Bozeman

Authors
  1. Xuhong Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barry Bozeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuhong Su.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, X., Bozeman, B. Family Friendly Policies in STEM Departments: Awareness and Determinants. Res High Educ 57, 990–1009 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9412-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9412-4

Keywords

  • STEM fields
  • Department chairs
  • Family friendly policies