Introduction

Nationally, White women take home just 82 cents for every dollar that men do. Meanwhile, Black and Latina women are paid just 63 and 55 cents, respectively, for every dollar paid to non-Hispanic White men. Undergirding these factors is the devaluation of women of color (WoC), gender discrimination, and systemic racism (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2009; Kim, 2015; Author1, 2016, 2020; Author, 2022). Browne and Misra (2003) found that race and gender are mutually constructed, whereby they contribute to a social hierarchy that advantages some individuals over others. White men usually get affordances associated with advantages where others do not, whereas WoC disproportionately suffer cumulative disadvantages. “Women of color” is a term used to collectively refer to women who belong to racial and ethnic groups other than white or of European descent (Moraga & Anzaldúa, 2022). It is an inclusive and intersectional term that recognizes the diversity of experiences and backgrounds among women who identify with various racial and ethnic identities. These racial and ethnic identities include Black/African American, Indigenous/Native Peoples, Asian, Latina, Middle Eastern, and multiracial women.

Higher education researchers have examined the differences in the wages of lower administrative staff (e.g., program directors) and administration leaders (e.g., deans and vice provosts), but rarely do such analyses address salary disparities among faculty members from different racial groups. Studies that have detailed salary inequities for WoC in higher education have not scrutinized specific disciplines (Blell et al., 2023; McChesney, 2018; Pasque, 2011).Footnote 1 Additionally, most previous research focusing on wage disparities has primarily used quantitative methods. Less is known about WoC perspectives on these wage inequities and how they have responded to them. We believe that exploring salary disparities among engineering faculty members is critical because dominant narratives of faculty of color in engineering suggest that the field is level and non-political (cf. McGee, 2020). However, these characterizations of academic engineering culture are largely inaccurate. While the field touts itself as neutral, universal, non-political, objective, and merit-driven, WoC suffer both material and psychosocial disadvantages. Research estimates that achieving salary equity in engineering could take 76 years for Black and Latine workers, and up to 256 years for Black workers alone (Center on the Education of the Workforce, 2021). To put this simply, Black and Latine workers would have to live several lifetimes to catch up to the pay of White engineers. Such disparities diminish the likelihood of intergenerational wealth transfers to the children of these professionals.

We use a transcendental phenomenological research design, a type of qualitative research, to investigate the perspectives of 32 WoC engineering faculty at various U.S. institutions, focusing specifically on wages and wage disparities. This approach to qualitative research aims to understand the human experience of a phenomenon, in this case wage disparities. Consequently, it permits the meaning of phenomena to emerge naturally within the participants’ own identity (Sheehan, 2014). We define wage disparities, sometimes known as the racial wage gap as “the difference in men’s and women’s median earnings, usually reported as either the earnings ratio between men and women or as an actual pay gap” (Miller & Vagins, 2018, p. 7). Drawing from Cunningham (2015), we define wage inequality as wages distributed unevenly among a group of people, where the differences in wages or salary are disproportionate for one or more population groups. Academia provides an appropriate setting to study wage inequality based on gender because academics of all genders have relatively similar education and training and perform similar tasks.

WoC are chronically underrepresented in the STEM fields, especially in engineering (Main et al., 2020, 2022; NCES, 2019). This research is part of a larger project that explores why WoC faculty persist in engineering departments, despite the many structural barriers they face. We asked our interview participants about mentorship, collaboration, research agendas, and how their salaries compare to their faculty colleagues, particularly, White men. Our findings on pay inequality were so pronounced and starkly disproportionate that we pursued three research questions for this paper: (1) what do WoC engineering tenure-track faculty perceive about wage disparities based on their race and gender? (2) how do WoC faculty understand the institutional practices that contribute to wage disparities? and (3) how do WoC engineering faculty respond to and address wage disparities? Our broader purpose is to understand how WoC faculty perceive, experience, and navigate wage disparities.

Given the compounding effects of earnings over one’s lifetime, we used phenomenological methods to understand these differences and explore factors that, according to WoC faculty members, have contributed to this disparity and their responses to these disparities. Phenomenological approach is especially appropriate in understanding the compounding effects of lifetime earnings because it allows researchers to study the lived experiences of individuals and groups. This is important because the compounding effects of lifetime earnings are not just a matter of numbers, but also of how people experience them. To address this problem, it is essential to understand features of workplace salary negotiations that are objectionable and unwelcoming to WoC. To date, only a small number of qualitative studies with WoC engineering faculty have highlighted their responses to wage negotiations (Carr et al., 2019; Corneille et al., 2019). Carr et al. (2019) and Corneille et al. (2020) both found that women of color are less likely to negotiate their salaries than white women and men. Carr et al. (2019) found that this is due to a number of factors, including: lack of confidence, fear of backlash, and Women of color are more likely to feel obligated to accept the first offer they are given, even if it is lower than what they are worth. This is likely due to a combination of factors, including cultural norms and a sense of responsibility to their families and communities.

The phenomenological approach in this study allows for an in-depth exploration of the perceptions, experiences, and strategies employed by WoC engineering faculty members in response to wage disparities. By highlighting the lived experiences of these individuals, our study contributes to the understanding of the complex dynamics of pay inequity and calls for institutional and policy changes to promote pay equity and inclusion in academia.

In this paper, we first present an overview of the intersectionality of race and gender in creating and perpetuating wage disparities for WoC engineering faculty, followed by a review of structural racism, the conceptual framework that guides our analysis. We then provide an analysis of the interviews we conducted with our participants, followed by our findings as they relate to our three research questions. We conclude with a discussion of the role institutions play in creating salary equity measures and policies and make recommendations for further research and practice.

Wage Disparities in Higher Education

According to the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (2018), Latine/Hispanic and African American/Black people comprised 5% and 6%, respectively, of STEM university faculty members in 2017. Meanwhile, Latine/Hispanic people were about 19% of the U.S. population in 2020, while African Americans/Blacks comprise a little more than 12% (Jones et al., 2021). About three-quarters of faculty members at U.S. colleges and universities are White. Additionally, top academic leadership positions are typically held by White men. Women faculty are underrepresented in the high-prestige institutions that grant high-value doctoral degrees, whereas they are overrepresented in the humanities and arts departments, which pay lower salaries (Park, 2011). A report from the American Association of University Women exposes an extreme power gap among top salary earners at U.S. universities: only one in ten top-earning faculty members is a woman, and women of color make up just 2% of these high-paid earners, which means WoC “are virtually nonexistent among top earners” (Silbert et al., 2021, p. 5).

Research suggests that women negotiate less aggressively than their men counterparts (Sambuco et al., 2013). Factors such as lower research productivity (Umbach, 2007; Winslow, 2010), lower senior academic rank (Bentley & Adamson, 2003), and fewer patents (Parthasarathy, 2020; Whittington & Smith-Doerr, 2005) partially explain gender wage inequality in STEM fields. In addition, the gender wage gap experienced in the early career stages is more likely to widen with seniority, due in part to women faculty’s less aggressive approach to salary negotiations (Perna, 2005). Women in academia often settle for lower salaries and fewer benefits because they tend to trade high compensation for flexibility or to prioritize a spouse’s employment over their own (Jagsi et al., 2013; Schiebinger et al., 2008).

Furthermore, WoC are often penalized with lower salary outcomes when they try to negotiate (Hernandez et al., 2019). Factors that affect STEM women’s wage parity disproportionately impact WoC faculty, who are less likely to receive tenure and who receive less funding for patent-worthy innovations (Fechner & Shapanka, 2018). Notwithstanding, the patent process and history, which have been shown to be replete with racist and sexist barriers that limit equitable outcomes and cause patents to be stolen or go unnoticed (Cook et al., 2022; Moore, 2020), WoC tend to face rigid salary terms that limit opportunities to negotiate and experience the fear that negotiating assertively for a higher salary causes a backlash (Guillory, 2001; Leibbrandt & List, 2015; Toosi et al., 2019).

When explored closely, this wage gap exposes various levels of inequity for WoC (PayScale, 2021). For example, Asian and Pacific Islander women, a group that typically outperforms their White counterparts academically, have the smallest pay gap with men, but they nonetheless remain chronically underpaid. A study by Tucker (2021) shows that Asian women make 85 cents to every dollar earned by their White men counterparts. Thus, working full time and year-round, Asian women will earn about $400,000 less than men over the course of their careers. Black women are the lowest paid among all women, and have intersecting, marginalized race-gender identity costs that are estimated to range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars over the course of their careers. According to a report by the National Women’s Law Center, Black women earn just 62 cents for every dollar that white men earn. This wage gap is even wider for Black women with college degrees, who earn just 54 cents for every dollar that white men with college degrees earn (Tucker, 2020). This wage gap also follows women into retirement: as a result of lower lifetime earnings, women receive less in Social Security and pensions and have only 70% of the overall retirement income of men (Miller & Vagins, 2018). This ongoing pay gap is a drag on the United States’ economic growth. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (2020), compensating women equally would add $512.6 billion to the national annual income. This wage gap holds women back from buying homes, starting families, building wealth, and paying off student debt.

Additionally, women hold nearly two-thirds of the outstanding student debt in the United States, and many struggle to repay those loans. This debt falls disproportionately on WoC. For example, Black women have 22% more college-related student loan debt than their White women counterparts (Hess, 2021). Furthermore, WoC who graduate with this debt enter a workforce where they are paid disproportionately less, even when controlling for job title, years of experience, industry, education, and location (PayScale, 2021).

Gender- and Race-Based Wage Disparities in STEM

Much of the literature has studied the role of promotion and academic career progression in driving gender wage inequality with differences in the rate of promotion between men and women having significant implications for wage discrepancies (Ginther & Hayes, 2003; Main et al., 2021; Olvera, 2021; Wang et al., 2021). For example, the wage gap may increase if women spend more years in the lower academic ranks relative to comparable men (Ginther, 2004). Wage disparity remains prevalent in colleges and universities as women who have tenure or are in tenure-track positions are more likely to earn less than men in similar ranks, even within the same departments and institutions (Renzulli et al., 2013). Wage gaps among faculty vary by discipline, with technology, engineering, and mathematics fields demonstrating the largest gender wage gaps (Pew Research Center, 2018; Umbach, 2007).

Research advances numerous explanations for the persistence of the gender-based wage gap in academia and explores why wage gaps are heightened for WoC in STEM fields. A recent survey by the National Science Foundation (2017) shows a gender gap in median annual salary; within ten years of graduation, women in science and engineering departments receive $2,000 less than men as full professors, $5,000 less as associate professors, $4,000 less as assistant professors, and $5,000 less as lecturers. n or more years after graduation, these gaps widen to $11,000 for full professors, $5,000 for associate professors, $9,000 for assistant professors, and $7,000 for lecturers (National Science Foundation, 2017). According to a study by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), women faculty members in STEM fields earn significantly less than men faculty members in the same fields. Women faculty members in computer science earn the least, with an average salary of $92,000. Women faculty members in engineering earn the most, with an average salary of $105,000. However, even in engineering, women faculty members still earn less than men faculty members. However, this gender pay gap is even wider for women of color. Furthermore, discipline-specific pay differences in STEM show that Black and Latina women are paid significantly less than White and Asian women (Fry et al., 2021).

The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES, 2022) reports that Black women engineering faculty made up 4.5% of the total engineering faculty in the fall 2020, Latina women engineering faculty made up 3.1%, and Asian women engineering faculty made up 3.5%. Black, Latina, and Asian women engineering faculty are more likely to be employed at minority-serving institutions (MSIs) than at non-MSIs. In fall 2020, 23.9% of Black women engineering faculty were employed at MSIs, 14.6% of Latina women engineering faculty, and 17.5% of Asian women engineering faculty. Black, Latina, and Asian women engineering faculty are more likely to be untenured than tenured. In fall 2020, 59.1% of Black women engineering faculty were untenured, compared to 51.8% of Latina women engineering faculty and 48.6% of Asian women engineering faculty.

Moore (2017) notes that the social class of WoC shapes their experiences in the higher education context. WoC experience the intersection of multiple oppressed identities, which can impact their experiences with economic class. Professors are generally considered middle class, but WoC in academia do not receive equitable compensation (Renzulli et al., 2006), and these disproportionate wages end up reinforcing racial and economic inequality. When comparing the wage gap within racial groups, Li and Koedel (2017) show that at selective public universities, the disparity between White men and White women is smaller than the disparity between Black men and Black women.

Institutional Responses to Wage Inequities

Higher education institutions can be proactive or reactive when addressing pay equity. Taylor and colleagues (2020) document proactive and novel strategies absent at many colleges and universities. These include conducting salary equity studies or market analyses that help prevent lawsuits and illuminate sources of inequity and ameliorate them. Such institutional advocacy takes place when credible studies examine salaries in the context of factors such as worker productivity, individual and group wage differences, faculty rank, and experience. Taylor and colleagues (2020) found that compensation differences among individuals and groups can be illuminated when multiple years of data are analyzed, rather than cross-sectional data. When institutions only look at the significance of specific variables, they may overlook emergent causes of inequity. Moreover, certain statistical models may mask differences in salary.

When institutional responses to gender-based wage inequality are reactive, they often result in women faculty bringing legal action. According to the Center for American Progress, 84.6% of wage discrimination cases are initiated by women (Frye & Holmes, 2017). Academic institutions have been both reactive to and dismissive of these women’s claims of wage disparity. For example, plaintiffs in EEOC v. University of Denver (2022) made specific allegations in 2016, including the EEOC’s observation that the University of Denver “was aware of these pay disparities as of December 2012, but took no action to ameliorate this disparity, in effect intentionally condoning and formalizing a history of wage disparity based on sex” (p. 4). As a result, the University of Denver paid $2.66 million in damages, increased the salaries of the seven plaintiffs, published salaries and compensatory information on an annual basis, and hired an economist to conduct an annual compensation equity study (Lipnic, 2018). While the University of Denver’s compensation to the plaintiffs is an example of a reactionary response, a similar claim at Princeton University demonstrates a dismissive response. Even though Princeton University agreed to pay more than $1 million to women professors to settle a wage disparity dispute, the university’s spokesman claimed that, based on their internal analysis of salaries, there was no wage disparity (Connley, 2014).

Our present study examines how WoC in academia navigated wage disparities, extending the literature on the reality of race and gender-based wage disparities, documented above. We focus on the perceptions and strategies that WoC used to navigate the wage disparities within their institutions. We use structural racism and intersectionality as a conceptual framework to explain the context in which the participants in our study perceived and navigated these race- and gender-based inequities.

Conceptual Framework: Structural Racism

In this paper, we use the conceptual framework of structural racism to explore the specific issue of how structural racism manifests in earnings in STEM higher education. Our intent is to show how wage inequities appear as a consequence of the structures of higher education, even where the institutions in question have a commitment to eradicate inequities. Since these inequities are embedded in a racist social structure, episodic, one-time solutions tend not to produce the desired result. In our conclusion section, we suggest some structural answers to wage inequity in higher education.

Dean and Thorpe (2022), quoting Gee and Ford (2011), define structural racism as “the macrolevel systems, social forces, institutions, ideologies, and processes that interact with one another to generate and reinforce inequities among racial and ethnic groups.” We borrow the conceptual framework of structural racism from Bonilla-Silva’s (1997) foundational article which defines it in terms of “racialized social systems” that “allocate differential economic, political, social, and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines; lines that are socially constructed” (p. 474). Races are not biologically determined but are constituted socially by an ongoing “process of racialization.” On the basis of a racialized social structure, “there develops a racial ideology” that “becomes the organizational map that guides actions of racial actors in society” (p. 474). Our current Western process of racialization and racialized structures have their origins in the European colonization of the Americas and Africa.

Racism is not found primarily in the realm of ideas and individual attitudes (Bonilla-Silva terms this latter approach the “idealist” conception of racism) but rather in the social structures and hierarchies that constitute a system of race definitions and relations. Thus, no amount of education will eradicate racism, since racism is not located in an individual’s collection of beliefs or attitudes. In other words, the solution to racism is not to be found in educating individuals (which does not change the underlying structure of racial hierarchies). Instead, the solution is achieved by disrupting the underlying social structures that give rise to the racist ideologies that provide the “organizational map” that reinforces hierarchical race relations (i.e., the subordination of one racial group and the superordination of another).

The literature suggests a specific link between the framework of structural racism and wage inequity. Yearby (2018) finds structural racism in hiring practices leads to a range of consequences including relatively low wages among subordinated racial and gender groups. Yearby notes that referrals account for one-third of all jobs obtained, and White men tend to refer other White men for available positions. The continuing legacy of segregation, a quintessential manifestation of structural racism, means that White men do not tend to socialize with WoC in spaces such as neighborhoods or schools and encounter few in their professional settings, especially in upper socioeconomic echelons. Therefore, WoC are not top of mind for White men when opportunities for professional referrals arise. Structural effects such as these tend to limit job opportunities in the more lucrative, White-dominated fields, which contribute to confining women of color in a small range of relatively poorly compensated fields. Working in lower-paying, lower-status positions, many WoC lack access to adequate health insurance, which negatively impacts their wellness, which emerges as another effect of structural racism. Yearby concludes that relative lack of access to health care tends to produce higher incidents of disability and disease in WoC. Yearby’s work shows how the framework of structural racism operates through a cascading series of causes and effects: from the persistence of segregation to scarce employment opportunities for WoC, to low wages and poor status jobs, to limited health care options, to poor health outcomes. This scholarship on the intersection between employment, wages, and health, shows how structural racism perpetuates negative outcomes for racialized individuals, without overtly racist intent.Footnote 2 In our previous work (Main et al., 2022; McGee, 2020; McGee et al., 2023), we have shown that the far-reaching consequences of structural racism affect most domains of American society, such as healthcare, housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, politics, and criminal justice (Milner, 2020).

Research Design

This study is part of a larger multi-year research project that used Patricia Hill Collins’s (2002) intersectionality framework to examine race, class, gender, and other salient identities of engineering faculty that emerged organically from each interview. The purpose of the broader study (from which the data for this analysis came) was to shed light on the experiences of WoC tenure-track engineering faculty. In conducting the analysis for this specific paper, we drew from structural racism to illuminate the experiences of WoC while emphasizing that WoC are not “white women plus color or men of color plus gender” (Wing, 2003, p. 7). We examined the experiences of WoC through the lens of structural racism. The approach enabled a robust understanding of their multiple identities and how they reflected upon both overt and covert discrimination (Berry, 2010; Evans-Winters & Esposito, 2010). Using the interview data, we investigated what motivated WoC engineering faculty members to persist, despite the gender and racial discrimination they endured at institutions across the United States (Main et al., 2022; Yoon et al., 2022). We conducted interviews with and collected data from fifty-three self-identified WoC at thirty institutions from 2016 to 2018; among this group, thirty-two women discussed wage disparities (refer to Appendix 1).

Summary of Transcendental Phenomenological Approach

Our study employed transcendental phenomenology to explore the lived experiences of WoC engineering faculty regarding wage disparities based on their race and gender. Transcendental phenomenology is a research approach that aims to investigate the essential structures of human experience and consciousness. In this context, “transcendental” means examining the phenomenon with intentionality, eidetic reduction, and constitution of meaning, which results in acquiring new knowledge derived from the essence of experiences (Moustakas, 1994). Thus, transcendental reduction allowed for examining the experience of engineering WoC faculty as well as context for the authors to disclose our own experiences and feelings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Moustakas, 1994).

We applied three steps to investigate and make meaning of participants’ experiences: examining the phenomenon with intentionality, eidetic reduction, and constitution of meaning (Husserl, 1970). Transcendental phenomenology also gave us a context to examine and disclose our own experiences and feelings. Our aim in doing so was to gain insight into how these faculty members perceive and navigate the challenges and practices associated with wage disparities. Additionally, the interview data collection format is particularly appropriate given that our phenomena of study are entrenched in participants’ real-world contexts (Moustakas, 1994).

Authors’ Positionality and Epistemological Perspective

Examining our own experiences first was essential to, in Toni Morrison’s (2017) words, “remain human and to block the dehumanization and estrangement of others” (p. 37), how race and gender are linked to power. Du Bois (1904/1996) held that we must gain reflexive control: “Some assumptions are necessary. [But] they must be held tentatively ever subject to change and revision” (p. 57). All authors are Women of Color in STEM/STEM Education fields and we all have navigated the racist and sexist terrain of STEM. Throughout this study, we remained attentive to and reflective of the ways in which our perspectives as minoritized WoC related to those of our participants. Further, we wanted to demonstrate the specific ways in which racism and sexism can be enacted even at the highest pinnacle of the educational pipeline (the Ph.D. and beyond). We have not been spared the power-yielding effects of racism in our pursuit of academic success. Thus, our positionality includes the negotiation of racialized and gendered experiences, discrimination, bias, and oppression; our understanding of White domination and its power structure in the academy; our own resistance against the dominant culture in both our scholarly and personal lives; and our overlapping yet divergent experiences with our non-White culture and specifically as Women of Color within that culture (Parsons, 2008).

Our epistemological perspective for this study can be identified as interpretivism, which emphasizes the subjective nature of knowledge and understanding. It recognizes that individuals construct their own meanings and interpretations of the social world based on their lived experiences, values, and cultural backgrounds. This perspective also emphasizes the perspectives and interpretations of research participants within their socio-cultural context. Interpretivism aligns well with our research objectives because it acknowledges the importance of individual experiences and perspectives. It helps us recognize that the participants’ lived experiences and interpretations are valuable sources of knowledge that contribute to understanding the phenomenon of wage disparities for WoC engineering faculty.

Participants

The participants were recruited using information from the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) database, in which institutions numerically self-report demographic information. Members of our research team combed university websites based on ASEE data and recruited participants via email. Participants were interviewed by all the authors on this manuscript, either in person at their universities, at national engineering-related conferences, or over the phone. The interview format was semi-structured, following a guiding list of questions, and audio recorded. Interviews lasted from 45 min to 2.5 h and were professionally transcribed. Each interviewee was compensated with a $50 gift card. Participants were given pseudonyms to de-identify them. The interviewees represented multiple engineering disciplines and hailed from all types of institutions: public, public research, private, private liberal arts, private religious, public land-grant institutions, and tribal colleges. Some of these were Hispanic-serving institutions and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Women who self-identified as having at least one minoritized racial marker were included in the study. There were thirty-two participants in the present study; please refer to Appendix 1 for the detailed demographic information of the women in our study sample.

Data Collection

Participants were interviewed in person at their universities, at national engineering-related conferences, and by telephone before the COVID-19 pandemic. The semi-structured interview protocol included: fourteen open-ended questions related to the women’s experiences and included eleven demographic items. The questions enabled participants to provide rich descriptions of their experiences. The semi-structured format also allowed faculty members to speak directly about their wage and wage disparities, while others spoke about them in relation to their other experiences as WoC faculty more generally. Most of the interviews were audio recorded; two were not recorded due to audio issues, and two faculty members asked that we not record their interviews. Because we were unable to cite direct quotes from interviewees who were not recorded, they were subsequently removed from our analysis. Interviews ranged in length, from twenty-five minutes to one hour and seventeen minutes. All interviews were professionally transcribed.

Data Analysis

We analyzed the interview data in NVivo, a computer-assisted qualitative data-analysis platform. We then reviewed the analyses to ensure accuracy and consistency. We primarily focused on identifying how WoC STEM faculty described their experiences with wage and salary negotiations and used our guiding theory of structural racism to assess the role that racism had on wages. The analysis was conducted by three faculty members (two Black women and one Asian American woman), two Black women postdoctoral researchers, and one Black woman doctoral student. The team met every two to three weeks and began the analysis with open coding (Glaser, 2016).

The analysis of the interview data followed the principles of transcendental phenomenology. The analysis aimed to uncover the essential structures and meanings within the participants’ experiences, going beyond individual accounts to identify commonalities and patterns across participants.

The initial step of data immersion involved repeatedly listening to and reading the interview recordings and transcripts to gain familiarity with the data. Members of the research team engaged in a process of bracketing, setting aside preconceived assumptions and biases, to approach the data with openness and objectivity. A coding architecture then emerged after a preliminary analysis and became a deductive guide for examining and creating themes for the interview data.

Researchers used highlighting and notes to (a) summarize themes within each document, using a combination of NVivo restatements of the data and direct quotes, and (b) to document potential questions, connections, underlying themes, and possible implications of the text for further analysis (Creswell, 2013; van Manen, 2014). We bracketed theoretical meaning from our frameworks and existing literature by using phenomenological insights coupled with room for new and expanded insights and knowledge from our participants since the concept of structural racism often explains more than traditional theoretical frameworks do about how structures hamper the wages of WoC (Neubauer et al., 2019). We were also mindful about the important elements of the experiential reality of WoC when engaging or discussing their salaries. Thus, in addition to our research questions, we asked throughout the data analysis process: How were wage disparities experienced? What are examples of incidents that have affected the understanding of wage disparities? How did respondents react and adapt to issues associated with wage disparities?

Following data immersion, the process of reduction involved identifying significant statements, key phrases, and themes within the data. The researchers engaged in phenomenological reflection, seeking to understand the participants’ lived experiences and uncover the essential meanings embedded within them. Codes and categories were developed to organize the data and facilitate analysis. Through iterative cycles of interpretation and discussion, the researchers engaged in a process of synthesizing the data to develop overarching themes and understandings. The analysis aimed to capture the essences of the participants’ experiences while considering the broader socio-cultural context and the impact of structural racism.

We discussed and reconciled discrepancies in the codes that yielded varying responses (Appendix 2). We then used this final coding scheme to analyze the remaining transcripts, which consisted of more than 800 pages of qualitative data. The final coding architecture contains a total of seven code categories and fifty-six subcategories. Coding the responses aided our analytical process, which consisted of a descriptive and a conceptual level. Our codes led to themes associated with salaries, salary increases, wage disparities, and how WoC responded to them; this analytic approach also illuminated the institutional factors that contributed to these disparities. Using pattern coding, by which recurrent material is grouped into themes or other constructs (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2009), the lead authors identified two categories that they found essential to understanding wage disparities: how they arise, and WoC responses during initial salary discussions and women’s tenure at their institutions.

Findings

Women of Color and the Perpetuation of Wage Disparities

For this study, we analyzed interview data from 32 WoC tenure-track engineering faculty to examine their perceptions of the wage disparities they experienced due to their gender and race. We found that these WoC were susceptible to wage discrimination at the intersection of race and gender, and that this discrimination was consistent with structural racism. These participants reported knowing about wage disparities in their own engineering profession and among WoC in general. The women in this study identified these forms of wage discrimination and their responses highlighted ways they push back against the White, patriarchal structure that often undergirds salary disparities in higher education. The lower wages paid to WoC faculty members appeared to underlie discriminatory practices that are normalized in academia. Their normalization can be difficult for WoC to push back against since it is the cultural norm that this treatment is appropriate. We found these practices to result not only from the decisions of individuals and individual institutions, but they were also representative of the framework of structural racism.

The most salient examples the women shared were those that reflected differences in wages, which were in the tens of thousands of dollars per year, with their White men counterparts. Three major themes emerged to describe how the WoC in our study perceived and navigated wage disparities: (1) exposing the structures of racism that maintain wage disparities; (2) seeking support through others’ advocacy, and (3) exercising their individual agency. We present these findings in greater detail below.

Exposing the Structural Racism that Maintains Wage Disparities

(A) Salary Secrecy and the Old Boys’ Club

Several of the women described salary secrecy as an institutional practice that exacerbates wage disparities. Consistent with the literature that describes salary secrecy as prohibiting discussion of salaries among staff members or not making salaries public, WoC in our study reported secret practices at their institutions that benefit a privileged few. Dr. Therese, a Black mechanical and aerospace engineering professor, discovered that salary disparities increased when individual faculty and administrators received raises at a time when none were scheduled:

It’s not just women of color. Again, these are issues that affect a lot of people because we didn’t get raises for seven years, “across the board.” But unbeknownst to us, some faculty and administrators were getting [raises]. They were getting increases while other people were not. So, your salary is compressed, compressed, compressed, and theirs is growing. Like, what? I didn’t even know anything about these things.

Despite a seven-year moratorium on raises for everyone at Dr. Therese’s institution, a faction of faculty members and administrators received wage increases. What is more, hers and others’ salaries remained disproportionately lower than her White counterparts before the moratorium. Failing to disclose salary increases and promotions are among the institutional practices that perpetuate salary inequities.

Like Dr. Therese, Dr. Jayda, a Black biological engineering professor, shared her shock and dismay when her White colleagues’ salaries were revealed:

I was very happy with my salary, until after a year. I saw what the other two people who had come in with me had made, [a] White male and the older White female. They’re getting $20,000 more than what I was getting. There was nothing I could do at that point. But I was very upset.

Dr. Jayda’s experience exemplifies how gender analyses miss the salary advantages White women have over WoC due to race. Differential salaries may be attributed to White racial privilege rather than gender, but they nonetheless have an oppressive impact—one that left Jayda earning thousands of dollars less than her White colleagues and feeling helpless in addressing it.

We also found that the wages of the WoC in our study were affected by exclusion. Dr. Jordan, a Black industrial engineering faculty member, recalled how the “old boys’ club” operated to exclude the women in her department:

We have a boys’—it’s a White boys’ network [but] the Indians and Asians are in the same club. Our department head, [I] find out years later, has like a beer club that the male faculty go to weekly. For years we would have no faculty meetings [but] they would be [meeting] once a month, deals [were] getting cut in the backroom, you don’t know anything about it.

The “old boys’ clubs,” which included men of White and Asian racial groups, enabled men to network exclusively and share ideas in spaces women typically did not frequent or did not get invited to (e.g., a beer club). This example demonstrates why using the lens of race alone to explore WoC’s experiences is inadequate. Although the exclusion Dr. Jordan experienced was not tied directly to questions of pay equity, financial opportunities were tied to networking practices that excluded women, making it doubly challenging for WoC to take advantage of these openings to advance their careers and receive equitable compensation (McGee et al., 2023). These narratives exemplify how the salary gap for WoC engineering faculty is exacerbated over time by secrecy in compensation practices. Practices such as secrecy about compensation and holding meetings to which WoC were not privy are ways in which structural racism manifests. They are ostensibly race-neutral in the sense that the individuals involved are likely to be unconscious of the racial and gendered implications of these practices, yet awareness of these structures does not negate their impacts on WoC experiences within departments. These are clear instances of structural racism in the field of higher education.

(B) Institutional Indifference and Neglect

Concern about disparities in faculty salaries has recently emerged in the literature, in national reports, and in legal cases. Some of the WoC in our study pointed to the sources of the wage disparities they experienced and indicated how administrators and other faculty members ignored or perpetuated the disparities through inaction. For example, Dr. Jasmine, an Asian faculty member in mechanical and aerospace engineering, described how her earnings compared to those of her similarly experienced men counterparts:

All the faculties who came here at the same year as me, those male faculties, they all earn more than me now. When we came here, we got exactly the same pay, but now they all earn more money than me. I feel it’s unfair, but what can I do about it? The university is aware about that [but] doesn’t do anything about it.

Meanwhile, Dr. Weiling, an Asian full professor of chemical engineering, understood that her administrators knew of the disparity in pay between her and her men colleagues and had determined that her lower salary was acceptable:

The chair, the dean, the VP for faculty affairs, they know how much people were being paid. It made me question, how could they let this happen? Don’t they value fairness and equity, and don’t they value who I am? That’s what really made me upset. It wasn’t the money, because I am in a dual-income family. Me being paid lower didn’t hurt like if I were a single parent, right? Because we still had enough to pay the mortgage and all that. That’s what made me go look for another position, because at that point I was like, if this institution doesn’t value who I am, what I bring to the table, then I need to be somewhere else.

Dr. Weiling’s statement calls out the inequity she faced but also reveals her economic and wealth privilege. Money is not a pressing issue for her because of her dual-income status, but she empathizes with single-income households in the vulnerable position of relying on a single income. Although she mentions that the difference in pay “didn’t hurt” because of her family income, Dr. Weiling perceives the lower pay as a devaluation of her professional worth. These considerations spurred her to look for another position. Dr. Weiling’s statement demonstrates that, although she was able to meet her day-to-day living expenses, she perceived a lower salary a reflection of her worth in academia that could indirectly impact her ability to succeed in the institution.

Dr. Weiling’s narrative also reflects the framework of structural racism. Since salary is tied to the perception of a faculty member’s worth, the inaction and apathy of the institution in the face of wage inequity has an impact beyond merely the ability of a faculty member to meet living expenses. Structural racism suggests that discrimination in one sphere, in this case in the matter of faculty salary, has an impact on discrimination in other spheres, in Dr. Weiling’s case, on her status in the eyes of future employers.

Seeking Support through Others’ Advocacy for WoC

While most research on salary disparities identifies the explicit factors that impact wages, we found that pay practices are quite nuanced. The WoC in our study reported that actions such as recommendations and faculty reviews underlie wage disparities. They described their primary coping strategies, which we have identified as: advocacy, agency, and avoidance. Of the 32 women who discussed wage disparities, we determined that 8 were advocates, 12 demonstrated agency, and 16 engaged in some type of avoidance.Footnote 3 While avoidance is a possible response to wage inequity, it is not the focus of this analysis and the authors are addressing it in a separate paper (McGee et al., 2023). This paper focuses on the agency WoC faculty take to navigate wage disparities, on active, rather than passive responses, such as avoidance.

(A) Significant Advocates for WoC

Advocacy is defined as an action that speaks in favor of, recommends, argues for a cause, supports or defends, or pleads on behalf of others (Alliance for Justice, 2020). The WoC in our study whom we considered advocates were those who challenged their own systemic wage inequality or encouraged wage parity on behalf of others. Some reported that colleagues or mentors had advocated for them in ways that enabled them to address the wage gap.

Dr. Rhonda, a Black biomedical engineering professor, shared that she received an evaluation from her engineering dean that failed to describe her academic contributions accurately. Knowing that the omission could affect her academic career and a salary increase, and having previously broached the issue with the dean of her college, Dr. Rhonda reached out to her mentor. This mentor, a woman, is the one who ultimately advocated on her behalf:

Maybe, two, three weeks following, I had a request from the dean for a meeting and at that meeting, my dean apologized for not having taken the time to write a more appropriate [evaluation] reflective of my work and reflective of his knowledge of my work, of what I had done in that year. Of course, he indicated that there were some issues that were going on with him personally and he probably did not take the time that he needed to, and he probably was under sort of a deadline and there were some things going [on]. But he apologized for that. But at that time, I immediately knew that my mentor had been the person who spoke to him, because I think I did follow her advice in the sense that I went, not sort of directly to him, but I went to his direct administrative support and I drew to her attention the errors that were in the actual letter, and she indicated she would let the dean know and have them addressed, but the apology that he made to me went beyond the things that I raised.

Dr. Rhonda indicated that she raised the recommendation issue with her dean previously but did not feel she had been heard. Her mentor’s advocacy, however, compelled her dean to change her evaluation. Realizing that evaluations of faculty members’ work are linked to salary increases and other opportunities, Dr. Rhonda’s mentor advocated on her behalf.

Advocates also addressed negative perceptions about women faculty that hampered their chances for promotion. Dr. Noelle, a White and Hispanic electrical engineer, was disadvantaged by a departmental system of rating and classifying faculty members. She shared that, when faculty members go up for tenure, they are placed in either a “good” or “bad” basket. Dr. Noelle had been placed in the “bad” basket. She explained her situation would not have changed had it not been for a man on her tenure committee who advocated for her. She reflected on the experience:

That process hurt me a lot because I had been doing interdisciplinary work before. It happened to be, by chance, that many of the other members of the committee had known my work, and then one of them realized, this is not good, this is not correct. He pulled the case up, fought for me, and I got tenure.

It is likely that Dr. Noelle’s evaluation for tenure would not have turned out favorably if not for her male advocate. She noted the importance of making him and her other colleagues aware of the quality of her work. Dr. Noelle also shared how even though the process had a turn of events it still impacted her emotionally.

Dr. Lucille, a Latina material science professor, saw an opportunity to advocate when an institutional inquiry and a market analysis of salary inequalities exposed differences in men’s and women’s salaries. Although this provided the impetus for the institution to correct the salaries of some women faculty members, the women were not automatically granted the salary correction. Only the women who reached out to the Dean and explicitly stated their right to an equitable salary were granted an increase, yet there was debate among the women about whether their pay raises closed the wage gap. However, Dr. Lucille stated, “they [institution] need to do this [market analysis] thing again,” which speaks to her understanding that achieving and maintaining parity in wages requires periodic reviews, and that maintaining salary equity has historically been a low priority at her institution. Dr. Lucille described it thus:

I know [that] maybe two years after I came, I got a big raise, and it was because they did [a] study and they saw that the women’s salaries were much lower than men’s salaries. There was one year where they actually corrected that, but that was a long time ago. I think they need to do this again.

Dr. Lucille acknowledged that salary equity is now an ongoing process and requires periodic review, which her institution was finally implementing. A periodic review is required because of the systemic tendency to pay men more than women and White faculty more than faculty of color.

Dr. Lucille’s argument is that the market analysis and salary adjustments as a one-time deal are insufficient to change the underlying systemic racism/sexism that leads to salary inequities and that this needs to be an ongoing effort. Questions still remain, to what extent did this institutional analysis lead to necessary and effective structural change?

The tendency to favor White and men faculty is the “default setting” of the compensation system, and this is why vigilance is required. If this structurally racist practice were to be uprooted, then there would be no need for periodic reviews. Dr. Lucille’s institution would have remedied the pay inequity once and for all. The structural tendency, however, is for the system to revert to the mean, in this case a situation where men and White women faculty have an advantage with respect to compensation.

Dr. Michaela, a Native Alaskan civil engineer, reported two occasions when she received support from advocates. In one instance, Dr. Michaela benefitted from a man’s salary negotiations and advocacy. She was able to secure a higher salary, despite not knowing how to negotiate, as she explained:

I didn’t know how to negotiate when I first started. They tried to lowball me and the other gentleman that started, the Alaskan Native gentleman. And we knew what the other people had made when they first started out. So he, thankfully, negotiated [by saying] that they didn’t have to pay for us to move because we were already here in [redacted state name]. So, they thankfully upped both of our salaries [by] the same amount.

Later in the interview, Dr. Michaela indicated that the salaries were increased the same amount, but since she did not share what the baseline salaries were, it is not clear whether her increased salary was on par with her man colleague’s. But Dr. Michaela recognized that, instead of being part of the old boys’ club, a facet of structural racism that marginalizes and excludes women, her man colleague fought on behalf of them both. Dr. Michaela recounted how, in another instance, a market analysis done by an economics class at her institution led to a review of salaries:

They did a market analysis across the country to see what other professors who teach those courses generally make. And they basically boosted my pay based on that market analysis. And so, then they looked at other people’s classes that they teach, and also boosted their pay based on just those courses, not anything else. So that was great. I was actually pretty excited that it wasn’t based on anything other than some market analysis.

Overall, Dr. Michaela’s and Dr. Lucille’s experiences contrast starkly with how other women in our study described their male colleagues’ role in creating a hostile environment by often justifying their higher salaries with higher productivity and citations. Some of the WoC claim that upon comparison, there are minor differences in the rate of productivity and citations, however, the salary of their male colleagues is still drastically (in most cases) higher.

Agency and its Limitations

Twelve WoC faculty demonstrated agency when they negotiated for wage increases based on what they knew about their men counterparts’ salaries—some had competitive offers from other institutions in hand. Dr. Mia, a Latina industrial engineering professor, recalled that knowing the salaries of other faculty members gave her a starting point to negotiate:

The first job I got, I can go and see people’s salaries, so I knew what to ask for. What I will say is that I knew what to ask for and maybe others don’t. The other thing is that what’s interesting is that I know what I asked for, because there was another male faculty member at the exact same time hired in the same rank, and I know that he got the same thing. I know that what I asked for, they automatically gave it to him, which is nice, it’s fair.

Unlike Dr. Mia, Dr. Tiffany, a Black industrial engineering professor, threatened to leave her position and call out the systemic inequity in wages to secure an acceptable salary. She was uncertain if the wage disparities were deliberate or due to ignorance on the part of people in the institution. Either way, she was impacted by structural racism and indicated that she had to advocate for herself. She recalls, “It’s interesting because for me it came at the point of looking for another job. And then, the university was saying, ‘No, we can create that here!’ And that was a huge salary jump, right?” Matching a competitive salary offer signaled that the institution recognized Dr. Tiffany’s worth but only when she had another job offer secured. Four other WoC in the study identified with Dr. Tiffany’s opportunity to leave the institution, able to negotiate a higher salary because they had an offer from another university. They referred to this as “playing the game.” In total, four women in our study referred to this practice as asserting agency, as Dr. Therese, a Black mechanical/aerospace engineering professor, explained:

So, I know there are wage disparities. Some of it is due to some people playing the game well. Again, here’s this game. Why are you gaming? Just pay people what they’re worth. But if you tell me I gotta go out and get an offer so that you can validate that I’m worth what I think I’m worth, by the time I get an offer, I’m gone.

We consider Dr. Therese’s choice to leave rather than to “play the game” as another form of agency, but one she would not have made if wage disparities were addressed as a means of retaining quality faculty. Using an offer from another institution as leverage in negotiations can have drawbacks for women. It is viewed as risky because the home institution may perceive the women as disloyal or may not match the higher offer, so the women are likely to have to leave, increasing their need to transition, which can affect the livelihoods of WoC.

When the expectations of institutions and WoC faculty diverge, mistrust may emerge between them. Furthermore, the practice of countering with an offer from another institution actually perpetuates the wage gap. First, it can lead to women being paid less than men because women are more likely to be offered lower salaries in the first place. Second, it can lead to women being passed over for promotions, because employers may be reluctant to pay women more than they are currently making. Third, it can lead to women feeling undervalued and discouraged from pursuing higher-paying jobs (Kachchaf et al., 2015). Dr. Sydney, a multiracial mechanical engineering professor, recounts her decision to address wage disparity:

I am very aware of wage disparity and that’s one of my crusades, I would say. So, when I was coming into [a public university], they gave me the offer and I was like, “Nope, I’m not going to go for that. This is my counteroffer.” So, I’m very up front about that because that’s something that really angers me.

Dr. Sydney’s rejection of the initial proposed salary was grounded in her knowledge of wage disparities and what her level of experience should equate to in a salary range. She mentioned that she is often angry about the practice of offering women lower wages and was adamant about resisting this form of marginalization. Meanwhile, Dr. Bernice, a Black industrial engineering professor and administrator, had similarly secured tenure from one institution and did not want to go through the same “dreadful tenure process” at her new institution:

I made them give me tenure. I interviewed with the dean. When I interviewed, I told him, I said, I’m not going through tenure again. I like the fact that I have tenure. I know I can’t get it doing this job. I would like to have it coming in. I went in as a tenured associate professor. I don’t need anybody advocating for me. I don’t, and when I say I don’t need—my life should not be where I need somebody to do something in order to get me something. I need to be able to do for myself.

Her comment reveals the issue of individual (agency) vs. collective (advocacy) approach to the social problem. Tenure is not possible without advocacy of some fashion. WoC have long relied on stereotypes that position them as superhuman and not in need of protection (e.g., too blessed to be stressed, Black girl magic, the strong -ethnic- women).

Study Limitations

Despite the robust insights from our participants, this study has several limitations. We did not ask participants how their respective institutions communicated or provided information about salaries. Therefore, we cannot determine whether or to what extent women faculty negotiated their salaries. The semi-structured nature of the interviews meant that some participants elaborated on points about wage disparities, while others did not. Finally, our study is limited because we did not interview the WoC faculty that were not successful in minimizing their wage gap via negotiations and might have, as a result, been pushed out of their universities. Their perspectives are missing from this analysis.

Discussion

The WoC engineering faculty in this study resisted multiple forms of marginalization and engaged in negotiations that reconciled some of their wage gap inequities. Exemplifying how to rely on mentors and how to negotiate to rectify systemic salary inequities appeared to be a necessary strategy to secure an equitable salary. But both strategies rely on individuals to counter structural racism. However, advocacy relies on more than one’s individual effort. Advocacy and agency rely on a deeper level, on multiple individuals, but the Academy celebrates and promotes professor successes as a result of their individual efforts (for additional critiques see Jonker et al., 2021; McCluney et al., 2021). The consistent need for WoC to rely on mentors and colleagues for information and resources to propel them forward shows these approaches are not widely sustainable or accessible (Corneille et al., 2019; Freeman & Kochan, 2019).

Our finding that leveraging mentors and demonstrating agency were solutions in individual cases only highlights the structural racism WoC face in academia. None of the findings above except for maybe one (we do not know if the pay audit Dr. Lucille benefited from was a permanent departmental fixture or a one-shot initiative) that institutions made structural changes to address pay inequity. In the one case where an institution of higher education studied pay inequity between men and women and made subsequent adjustments, the interviewee in question suggested this was not a permanent solution; the drift of the institution would inevitably return to a situation of pay inequity for WoC.

Thus, our findings suggest that structural racism drives pay inequity since racism is the default in how institutions operate unless they make concerted and continuous efforts to dismantle and adjust. The responses of these women suffice, in some cases, to create equitable pay, but other WoC in the future are likely to have to fight the same battle again. The solution to pay equity is not through individual advocacy or agency, but through enacting structural change in academic institutions across the board. In addition, reparations were not given to any of the women, which has a long-term impact on their retirement and livelihoods.

Our findings build on previous studies that have shown that industries employing predominantly women and minoritized workers are associated with lower wages. This reflects the devaluation of both their employment and that primarily people of color work in these sectors. Black women are more likely to earn less because they are marginalized by the intersection of their race/ethnicity and gender (Crenshaw, 2003). In this regard, wage disparities in academia reflect the broader social inequality in the United States. However, our study adds to the current state of knowledge by highlighting the perceptions and experiences of WoC engineering faculty and how they navigate wage disparities in the context of structural racism. There are many studies that quantify wage gaps; our study tries to understand the transcendental phenomenological responses of a marginalized population to those gaps.

Wage disparities in academia continue to exist at the intersection of race and gender. Moreover, the WoC in our study demonstrated that pay inequity is often coupled with other forms of exclusion and marginalization. Their narratives about their experiences and their subsequent interpretations of how gender-based wages inequities played out in their lives highlight that gender, racial, and engineering professional identities remain targets of oppression as higher salaries for White men remain the norm. Structural inequality perpetuates wage disparities for WoC in numerous ways that require a distinct analysis.

The WoC faculty members in our study referenced the mostly White “old boys’ clubs” as a factor that contributes to their marginalization (Cullen & Perez-Truglia, 2019). As Delgado (2003) highlights, however, a “girls’ club” of White women’s networks also has an impact on the hiring of WoC in academia, possibly contributing to wage disparities and to the unequal representation of WoC in the engineering arena in uniquely pejorative ways. This is exemplified in Dr. Jayda’s account of her White women colleagues being paid tens of thousands more than the Black women faculty members. In the White, patriarchal, classist capitalist system dominant in the U.S., WoC are doubly marginalized by race and gender. If they are also mothers, they may be triply marginalized. The fact that WoC have achieved success in engineering despite the many barriers they face demonstrates that they have the skills and determination to rise above their oppression. This is not without detrimental costs with negative impact on the women themselves.

Black and Latino men and White women are the most common beneficiaries of diversity initiatives in STEM, which most often means that diversity initiatives in the field largely ignore WoC. More research is done on White women than on Black, Latina, and Indigenous women combined. For WoC, racism, sexism, and classism overlap, and the compounded effect leaves them uniquely oppressed. The critical lack of WoC is a major structural issue of racism and discrimination built into hiring, recruitment, and retention, contributing to a particularly unwelcoming environment. The WoC engineering faculty in our study cited secrecy around wages, the privileges enjoyed by members of the “old boys’ club,” and other experiences of discrimination in their field that are seriously detrimental professionally and personally (Olvera, 2021; Ong et al., 2018). That said, many of them have responded to these negative experiences with agency and have engaged in advocacy to begin to disrupt the structure of wage disparities and the practices that perpetuate them.

According to the National Labor Relations Act (National Labor Relations Board, n.d.), pay secrecy is illegal, but systemic secrecy around wages and the failure to disclose professional opportunities equally to all continues to benefit faculty who are men and disadvantages women faculty, in particular WoC. Kim (2015) research discusses some of these issues and finds that states that ban pay secrecy have narrower gender gaps in wages and higher wages overall.

The practices that underlie this type of salary inequity do not occur surreptitiously; rather, they reverberate in the exclusion from professional opportunities and other gendered inequities that keep WoC at a disadvantage. As a result, the WoC engineering faculty in our study faced great difficulty in negotiating a fair salary when they entered academia. The effects of this endured over time, as they were unable to take advantage of professional opportunities or participate in the kind of conversations that would improve their salaries.

Some wage disparities occur because women are unaware of financial opportunities. Laws that prohibit pay secrecy policies require organizations and institutions to make pay scales, salaries, and promotion procedures public, which promotes salary transparency and can help to reduce the wage gap (Kim, 2015). But even with such laws in place, wage disparities re-formulate themselves in much the same way that racism does (Omi & Winant, 2014), with opportunities to increase wages being more covert and masked by policies and loopholes.

Our findings suggest that the wage disparities and marginalization our WoC respondents encountered were attempts to diminish their sense of worth and professional value. When these women associated their pay with how they were perceived by the university and with their feelings of powerlessness, it highlighted a particularly detrimental component of gender discrimination. This is understood within structural racism as another form of oppression designed to reinforce a dominant hierarchy of men. However, our study respondents reported an often-overlooked example of support among men: men academics who advocate for their WoC colleagues. This novel finding of men in solidarity with women has been explored little in the wage disparity research and is a much-needed response to patriarchy and sexism in academia. Thus, we conclude that men who advocate for individual WoC faculty members would ideally challenge the broader institutional wage disparities.

Moreover, the WoC engineering faculty in our study created strategic responses to their institutions’ maintenance of wage oppression. When colleagues or mentors advocated on their behalf, they saw an increase in their salaries and gained access to academic positions from which they had been previously excluded. While men colleagues’ advocacy enabled some women in our study to receive higher pay, tenure, or deserving recognition, WoC still receive a disproportionately small share of such support. Smith (2003) illuminates the purposeful institutional hindrances Black women face in academia; thus, their lack of access to mentorship has both emotional and financial costs that impact their advancement and persistence.

Agency was critical to our study participants in terms of gaining equitable pay. However, the way that WoC “played the game”—either by advocates or by agentic faculty members themselves—is an individual strategy to address wage disparities, but ultimately ends up perpetuating the system of inequality. We are not suggesting WoC lean in more, as the popular book by Sandberg and Scovell (2013) suggests, because this does not serve WoC well. It pretends that companies and institutions are a meritocracy that just requires individual effort (Schuller, 2021).

We believe the women who fought for individual wage equity were mostly successful, extensively researching peers’ salaries and the salary norms across their institutions. Their talents and expertise could be used to write publications or grant applications. But our findings also confirm that wage disparity strategies and insights required to successfully negotiate raises reinforce the dominance of Whiteness and maleness. Being assertive, having a sponsor with power, having publications in journals that are considered top tier, and having a significant grant portfolio are all biased to advantage White men. Many WoC think they are hired to conduct research, teach, or engage in service, but they often discover after they are hired that there are unwritten rules of engagement, particularly as relates to compensation. Many WoC take institutions at face value and expect that, if they are offered a salary, it is equitable and representative of the institution’s investment in them. They do not recognize the country club nature of academia, the privileges enjoyed by the “old boys’ club,” or that rules related to equity can be downplayed or ignored under many circumstances. Therefore, many do not negotiate their salaries successfully, which puts them at a deficit from the start of their careers, by no fault of their own. Ultimately, employers also may encourage a culture of secrecy around wages by discouraging sharing salary information.

Moreover, social norms in the U.S. often keep WoC from inquiring about their colleagues’ earnings, thus they may not even be aware that they are making less than men. Without such knowledge, they are unlikely to complain or ask for a comparable salary.

Institutions that devalue compensation for WoC need to be held accountable and should be obliged to investigate the root causes of any wage disparities on their campuses. To avoid attrition of WoC, institutions must implement transparent salary policies and practices. Their efforts to alleviate wage disparities for WOC should be reviewed annually. We recommend that researchers, practitioners, and policymakers begin to acknowledge the seriousness of wage disparities, especially when they are corrected only after being called out by WoC or their advocates. That wage disparities remain means that institutions do not take their consequences seriously enough and that their root causes for the ongoing disparities remain unaddressed.

Implications for Practice and Areas for Future Research

This research reveals several measures that are critical to closing wage disparities. Universities and colleges could adhere to or voluntarily comply with equal pay laws and policies to combat pay discrimination. In addition, compliance with the spirit of paid family and medical leave laws would strengthen women’s labor force participation and improve their ability to keep their jobs. We urge all institutions to collect and publish pay data, broken down by discipline, race, ethnicity, and gender using universal standards for reporting pay data. The collection of data facilitates a more intentional focus on the outsize pay disparities experienced by engineering WoC faculty. These proposed initiatives would help undertake efforts to reduce pay secrecy while identifying new strategies to combat pay secrecy. This would also provide added transparency for engineering WoC seeking better information about their pay prospects as new faculty. Installation of “glass ceiling” reviews examining advancement opportunities for engineering WoC faculty as they gain higher-paying raises via tenure and promotion to full professors is one important strategy for raising WoC wages. Too many women continue to be stuck in assistant professor tracks with limited advancement opportunities.

Furthermore, several areas of future research might extend the findings of this study. For example, the research could include a more comprehensive investigation of women engineering faculty across higher education institutions to explore if engineering WoC faculty beyond our study experience wage disparities. This is important since we did not have enough WoC at women’s higher education institutions in this study to assess the role of wage disparities in environments founded and built for women. Also, it would be important to examine how salaries and gaps compare to fields where WoC are few in number (e.g., nuclear engineering) versus where there are greater numbers of WoC engineering faculty (e.g., civil engineering). In other words, do commonalities or rarities of WOC in certain engineering disciplines increase or decrease the likelihood they will be paid equitably? Another area might explore the advocacy roles played by White women and men of color and the impact of positionality on advocacy for WoC wage equity. In addition, researchers might examine the role of WoC outside of faculty positions but in higher education administration positions to note if a transition to administration narrows wage disparities for WOC. Finally, the impact and importance of ensuring that advocacy and agency regarding equitable wages occur before a WoC is hired might be researched.

Conclusion

Gender-based wage disparity is one form of oppression that stems from misogynist practices in higher education. It often is explained away by gendering disciplines and by discounting the work of women-dominated fields. This is part of a larger system that oppresses women and discounts their contributions in fields dominated by men, such as engineering. Practices of wage disparity that include paying women tens of thousands less than men, as the women in our study experienced, help to perpetuate women’s lower socioeconomic class status by devaluing their academic accomplishments. These barriers are further exacerbated for WoC because of the compounding effect of racism and sexism, along with other systems of oppression. The WoC engineering faculty in our study were vulnerable to several types of wage inequality and marginalization. Although many studies highlight the challenges and barriers WoC engineering faculty face, few provide insights into how they respond to institutionalized wage disparities in their discipline. While the women in our study had common experiences with respect to wage inequalities and how those inequalities were coupled with discrimination and exclusion, their reactions varied. In some cases, this meant that they take a reactive stance by obtaining a higher salary offer from another institution to use as leverage in their salary negotiations, which enabled them to narrow the wage gap. Once a WoC goes out on the job market and secures a competitive offer, she might leave, a risk that most institutions seem all too willing to take. It is noteworthy to add that regardless if WoC are aware of salary disparities, they are impacted often times negatively by them.

For WoC engineering faculty, acting as agents and advocates cannot address structural inequities and in fact unfairly puts the onus on WoC to individually fight structural wage inequality. Targeted efforts must be made from university leadership, starting with STEM deans and chairpersons, to address the unique needs and multiple identities of WoC, with a particular focus on equitable wages. This requires taking a de-essentialized and race- and gender-conscious approach based on the context in which they teach and must begin by undoing the wage inequities that currently exist in STEM. To put this simply, wage disparities exist in a context where institutions have the resources and knowledge to prevent this form of structural inequity. Pay inequity must be interrogated with an explicit, simultaneous focus gender and race. Without doing so, it is most likely to produce inequitable outcomes for WoC in STEM.