Advertisement

Higher Education Policy

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 529–544 | Cite as

Inclusion of Women Academics into American Universities: Analysis of Women Status Reports

  • Xuhong Su
  • Monica Gaughan
Article
First Online:

Abstract

American research universities play an important role in the ongoing campaign to improve the status of women academics. During the last four decades, the practice of producing ‘status of women’ reports has been widely developed as part of the policy and management repertoire to understand the barriers women academics may face in their institutions. In this study, we attempt to unfold the institutional determinants of producing such reports. The findings suggest that the most important determinant is the existence of a permanent and institutionally sanctioned commission on women at the university level. This type of institutional commitment to matters of women academics proves far more important than the presence of policy entrepreneurs or programme support such as the NSF ADVANCE initiative. The primary policy implication is that universities should invest in and maintain formal institutional structures that focus on the particular needs of women academics.

Keywords

women academics institutional commitment equity policy and management 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation: ‘NSF CAREER: University Determinants of Women’s Academic Career Success’ (REC-0710836, Monica Gaughan, PI). The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank Barry Bozeman, Mary Frank Fox, and Jim Hearn for their helpful comments. We also thank Jennifer Castleman for her assistance during data collection.

References

  1. Allan, E. (2003) ‘Constructing women’s status: Policy discourses of university women’s commission reports’, Harvard Educational Review 73 (1): 44–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagilhole, B. and White, K. (2011) Gender, Power and Management: A Cross-cultural Analysis of Higher Education, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G and Riley, G.R. (1978) Policy Making and Effective Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Bird, S., Litt, J and Wang, Y. (2004) ‘Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work” ’, NWSA Journal 16 (1): 194–206.Google Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, R. (1988) How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Blackmore, J. and Sachs, J. (2007) Performing and Reforming Leaders: Gender, Educational Restructuring, and Organizational Change, New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blossfeld, H.P., Hamerle, A. and Mayer, K.U. (1989) Event History Analysis: Statistical Theory and Application in the Social Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Blossfeld, H.-P. and Rohwer, G.t. (1995) Techniques of Event History Modeling: New Approaches to Causal Analysis, Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Boyne, G.A., Gould-Williams, J.S., Law, J. and Walker, R.M. (2005) ‘Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (3): 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradbury, M.D. and Kellough, J.E. (2008) ‘Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 697–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972) ‘A garbage can model of organizational choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Currie, J. and Hill, B. (2013) ‘Gendered universities and the wage gap: Case study of a pay equity audit in an Australian university’, Higher Education Policy 26 (1): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Currie, J., Thiele, B and Harris, P. (2002) Gendered Universities in Globalised Economies: Power, Career and Sacrifice, Oxford: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  14. Deem, R., Hillyard, S. and Reed, M. (2007) Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Managerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dill, D.D. and Helm, K.P. (1988) ‘Faculty Participation in Strategic Policy Making’, in J.C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol IV, New York: Agathon, pp. 319–355.Google Scholar
  16. Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. (2007) ‘The architecture of inclusion: Evidence from corporate diversity programs’, Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 30 (2): 279–302.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, M. and Colatrella, C. (2006) ‘Participation, performance, and advancement of women in academic science and engineering: What is at issue and why’, The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (3): 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, M.F. (2008) ‘Institutional Transformation and the Advancement of Women Faculty: The Case of Academic Science and Engineering’, in J.C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol XXIII, Houten: Springer Netherlands, pp. 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens, A. (1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hearn, J.C. and Griswold, C.P. (1994) ‘State-level centralization and policy innovation in US postsecondary education’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16 (2): 161–190.Google Scholar
  22. Hindera, J.J. (1993) ‘Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in the EEOC district offices’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3 (4): 415–429.Google Scholar
  23. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. and Kelly, E (2006) ‘Best practice or best guess? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies’, American Sociological Review 71 (4): 589–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamerman, S.B. and Kahn, A.J. (1991) Child Care, Parental Leave, and the Under 3s: Policy Innovation in Europe, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  25. Kanter, R.M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Keiser, L.R., Wilkins, V.M., Meier, K.J. and Holland, C.A. (2002) ‘Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy’, The American Political Science Review 96 (3): 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelly, R.M. and Newman, M. (2001) ‘The gendered bureaucracy’, Women and Politics 22 (3): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kulis, S. (1997) ‘Gender segregation among college and university employees’, Sociology of Education 70 (2): 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kulis, S. (1998) ‘Organizational variations in women scientists’ representation in Academia’, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 4 (1): 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laws, J.L. (1975) ‘The psychology of tokenism: An analysis’, Sex Roles 1 (1): 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Long, J.S. and Fox, M.F. (1995) ‘Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism’, Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1): 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCormick, A.C. (2000) The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2000 Edition, Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  33. McGuinness, A. (1994) ‘State policy and faculty workload: Trends across the United States’, Higher Education Policy 7 (2): 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLendon, M.K., Deaton, R. and Hearn, J. (2007) ‘The enactment of reforms in state governance of higher education: Testing the political instability hypothesis’, The Journal of Higher Education 78 (6): 645–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meier, K.J., Wrinkle, R.D. and Polinard, J.L. (1999) ‘Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question’, The Journal of Politics 61 (4): 1025–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, The American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T. and Alexander, A. (2008) ‘Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions’, Perspectives on Politics 6 (2): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morley, L. (1999) Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy, New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morley, L. (2006) ‘Hidden transcripts: The micropolitics of gender in commonwealth universities’, Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (6): 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (2001) From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council (2006) To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council (2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. National Research Council (2010) Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. O’Connor, J.S., Orloff, A.S. and Shaver, S. (1999) States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rosser, S.V. (2004) The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith-Doerr, L. (2004) Women’s Work: Gender Equity vs. Hierachy in the Life Sciences, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  48. Sowa, J.E. and Selden, S.C. (2003) ‘Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy’, Public Administration Review 63 (6): 700–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stewart, A.J., Vaque-Manty, D.L. and Malley, J.E. (2004) ‘Recruting female faculty members in science and engineering: Preliminary evaluation of one intervention model’, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 10 (4): 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sturm, S. (2006) ‘The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 29 (2): 247–334.Google Scholar
  51. Sturm, S. (2007) ‘The architecture of inclusion: Interdisciplinary insights on pursuing institutional citizenship’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 30 (2): 409.Google Scholar
  52. Tanaka, S. (2005) ‘Parental leave and child health across OECD countries’, The Economic Journal 115 (501): F7–F28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walby, S. (2004) ‘The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of gender regime’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 11 (1): 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilkins, V.M. (2007) ‘Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilkins, V.M. and Keiser, L.R. (2006) ‘Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yoder, J.D. (1991) ‘Rethinking tokenism’, Gender and Society 5 (2): 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xuhong Su
    • 1
  • Monica Gaughan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options