Research in Higher Education

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 657–691 | Cite as

More Than a Pipeline Problem: Labor Supply Constraints and Gender Stratification Across Academic Science Disciplines

Article

Abstract

Employing a nationally representative sample of science faculty in U.S. colleges, we investigate 3 explanations for persisting differences in women's faculty representation across science fields even after adjusting for women's variable representation among doctoral recipients. First, we examine labor market factors: (a) differential growth rates and “critical mass” in the supply of women doctoral recipients, (b) growth or contraction in academic and nonacademic job opportunities, and (c) presence of foreign-born scholars. Second, we control for institutional explanations such as differential rates of faculty unionization and less receptivity to women at prestigious or research-oriented universities and fields that are “applied,” “soft,” or “nonlife” sciences. Third, gender role explanations are addressed by controlling for gender differences in work experience, work interruptions, and the prestige of doctoral credentials. After finding that none of these explanations account fully for distinctive patterns among science fields in the faculty gender composition, we discuss how they may reflect differences in academic “cultures.”

women scientists faculty women gender inequity doctoral labor supply academic cultures 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Association of American Medical Colleges (1992). Participation of Women and Minorities on U. S. Medical School Faculties, 1980-1990 Association of American Medical Colleges, Faculty Roster System, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, H. S., and Davis, D. E. (1985). Research productivity across the life and career cycles: Facilitators and barriers for women. In: Fox, M. F. (ed.), Scholarly Writing and Publishing: Issues, Problems, and Solutions, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 147-160.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, J. N., and Newman, A. E. (1989). Pay the man: Effects of demographic composition on prescribed wage rates in the California Civil Service. In: Michael, R. T., Hartmann, H. I., and O'Farrell, B. (eds.), Pay Equity: Empirical Inquiries, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 107-130.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, J. N., and Newman, A. E. (1990). For what it's worth: Differences across organizations, occupations and the value of work done by women and nonwhites. Am. Sociol. Rev. 55: 155-175.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, Open University Press, Bristol, PA.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. S. (1971). The Economics of Discrimination, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Bellas, M. L. (1993). Faculty salaries: Still a cost of being female? Soc. Sci. Q. 74: 62-75.Google Scholar
  8. Bellas, M. L. (1994). Comparable worth in academia. Am. Sociol. Rev. 59: 807-821.Google Scholar
  9. Bernard, J. (1975). Women, Wives and Mothers, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Beyer, J. M. (1978). Editorial policies and practices among leading journals in four scientific fields. Sociol. Q. 19: 68-88.Google Scholar
  11. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. J. Appl. Psychol. 57: 204-213.Google Scholar
  12. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1987). A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, Author, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, B. R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, Y., and Pfeffer, J. (1986). Organizational hiring standards. Adm. Sci. Q. 31: 1-24.Google Scholar
  15. Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Douglas, J. M. (1990) Directory of Faculty Contracts and Bargaining Agents in Institutions of Higher Education (Vol. 16), National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions-Baruch College, C.U.N.Y., New York.Google Scholar
  17. Ehrenberg, R. G. (1991). Academic labor supply. In: Clotfelter, C. T., Ehrenberg, R. G., Getz, M., and Siegfried, J. J. (eds.), Economic Challenges in Higher Education, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Chapters 6-10.Google Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., and Uzzi, B. (1992). Athena unbound: Barriers to women in academic science and engineering. Sci. Public Policy 19: 157-179.Google Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., and Uzzi, B. (1994). The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science 266: 51-54.Google Scholar
  20. Fox, M. F., and Stephan, P. E. (1996). Careers in science: Preferences, prospects, realities. Paper presented at a conference on Science Careers, Gender Equity, and the Changing Economy, co-sponsored by the Commission on Professional in Science and Technology and Radcliffe Public Policy Institute, October.Google Scholar
  21. Gornick, V. (1990). Women in Science: 100 Journeys into the Territory, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Hamovitch, W., and Morgenstern, R. (1977). Children and the productivity of academic women. J. Higher Educ. 48: 633-645.Google Scholar
  23. Hargens, L. L., and Hagstrom, W. O. (1982). Consensus and status attainment patterns in scientific disciplines. Sociol. Educ. 55: 183-196.Google Scholar
  24. Hargens, L. L., and Long, J. S. (2002). Demographic inertia and women's representation among faculty in higher education. J. Higher Educ. 73: 27-59.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, L. V., Lindzey, G., and Coggeshall, P. (eds.) (1982). An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Justus, J., Freitag, S. B., and Parker, L. L. (1987). The University of California in the Twenty-First Century: Successful Approaches to Faculty Diversity, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  27. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on Gender and Science, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  29. Knorr-Centina, K. D. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Kulis, S. (1998). Organizational variations in women scientists' representation in academia. J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 4: 43-67.Google Scholar
  31. Lomperis, A. M. T. (1990). Are women changing the nature of the academic profession? J. Higher Educ. 61: 643-677.Google Scholar
  32. Marwell, G., Rosenfeld, R. A., and Spilerman, S. (1979). Geographic constraints on women's careers in academia. Science 205: 1225-1231.Google Scholar
  33. McGinnis, R., and Long, J. S. (1988). Entry into academia: Effects of stratification, geography and ecology. In: Youn, T. I., and Breneman, D. W. (eds.), Academic Labor Markets and Careers, Falmer Press, Philadelphia, pp. 28-51.Google Scholar
  34. McIlwee, J. S., and Robinson, J. G. (1992). Women in Engineering: Gender, Power, and Workplace Culture, State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  35. National Academy of Sciences (1983). Climbing the Ladder: An Update on the Status of Doctoral Women Scientists and Engineers, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  36. National Science Foundation (1988). Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1987, National Science Foundation, Publication 88-331, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  37. National Science Foundation (1990). Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, Publication 90-301, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  38. National Science Foundation (1998). Science and Engineering Indicators, 1998, National Science Foundation, Publication NSB-98-1, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  39. National Science Foundation (1999). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1998, National Science Foundation, Publication 99-33888, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  40. Pearson, W., Jr., and Fechter, A. (eds.) (1994). Who Will do Science? Educating the Next Generation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  41. Perrucci, C. C. (1986). Gender equity in sociology faculty employment patterns: A cross-university comparison. Sociol. Soc. Res. 70: 235-241.Google Scholar
  42. Petersen, T. (1985). A comment on presenting results from logit and probit models. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50: 130-131.Google Scholar
  43. Pfeffer J. and Davis-Blake A. 1987. The effect of the proportion of women on salaries: The case of college administrators.Adm.Sci.Q. 32: 1-24Google Scholar
  44. Reskin, B. F. (1980). Sex Differences in the Professional Life Chances of Chemists, Arno, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Reskin, B. F. (1988). Bringing the men back in: Sex differentiation and the devaluation of women's work. Gend. Soc. 2: 58-81.Google Scholar
  46. Reskin, B., and Roos, P. (1990). Job Queues, Gender Queues, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenblum, G., and Rosenblum, B. R. (1990). Segmented labor markets in institutions of higher learning. Sociol. Educ. 63: 151-164.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenblum, G., and Rosenblum, B. R. (1996). The flow of instructors through the segmented labor markets of academe. Higher Educ. 31: 429-445.Google Scholar
  49. Rossiter, M. (1978). Sexual segregation in the sciences: Some data and a model. Signs 4: 146-151.Google Scholar
  50. Salancik, G. R. (1979). Interorganizational dependence and responsiveness to affirmative action: The case of women and defense contractors. Acad. Manage. J. 22: 375-394.Google Scholar
  51. Shepherd, W. G., and Levin, S. G. (1973). Managerial discrimination in large firms. Rev. Econ. Stat. 55: 412-422.Google Scholar
  52. Sonnert, G., and Holton, G. (1995). Who Succeeds in Science? The Gender Dimension, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  53. Stephan, P. E., and Kassis, M. M. (1997). The history of women and couples in academia. In: Ferber, M. A., and Loeb, J. W. (eds.), Academic Couples: Problems and Promises, University of Illinois, Urbana, pp. 44-79.Google Scholar
  54. Swazey, J., Anderson, M., and Louis, K. S. (1993). Some ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, Nov.-Dec., pp. 542-553.Google Scholar
  55. Szafran, R. F. (1984). Universities and Women Faculty: Why Some Organizations Discriminate More than Others, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Tack, M. W., and Patitu, C.-L. (1987). Faculty Job Satisfaction: Women and Minorities in Peril, George Washington University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  57. Thurgood, D., and Weinman, J. M. (1991). Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities. Summary Report 1990, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  58. Tolbert, P. S. (1986). Organizations and inequality: Sources of earnings differences between male and female faculty. Sociol. Educ. 59: 227-235.Google Scholar
  59. Toren, N., and Kraus, V. (1987). The effects of minority size on women's position in academia. Soc. Forces 65: 1090-1100.Google Scholar
  60. Turner, C. S. V., Myers, S. L., and Cresswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The case of faculty of color in the midwest. J. Higher Educ. 70: 27-59.Google Scholar
  61. Vetter, B. M. (1992). Supply and demand in science and engineering. Occasional Paper 91-4, Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  62. Warner, L. G., and DeFleur, M. (1969). Attitude as an interactional concept: Social constraint and social distance as intervening variables between attitudes and action. Am. Sociol. Rev. 34: 153-169.Google Scholar
  63. White, J. A. (1989). The engineering faculty pipeline: An NSF perspective. Eng. Educ. 79: 547-549.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, R. (1996). The occupational masculinity of computing. In: Cheng, C. (ed.), Masculinities in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 77-95.Google Scholar
  65. Yentsch, C. M., and Sindermann, C. J. (1992). The Woman Scientist: Meeting the Challenges for a Successful Career, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  66. Yoels, W. C. (1974). The structure of scientific fields and the allocation of editorships on scientific journals: Some observations of the politics of knowledge. Sociol. Q. 15: 264-276.Google Scholar
  67. Youn, T. I., and Zelterman, D. (1988). Institutional career mobility in academia. In: Youn, T. I., and Breneman, D. W. (eds.), Academic Labor Markets and Careers, Falmer, Philadelphia, pp. 52-73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyArizona State UniversityTempe
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations