Institutional Transformation and the Advancement of Women Faculty: The Case of Academic Science and Engineering

  • Mary Frank Fox
Part of the Handbook of Theory and Research book series (HATR, volume 23)

The participation, status, advancement of women faculty in science and engineering are pressing social concerns for reasons of human resources for, and social equity within, these fields. This chapter 1) presents a rationale for scientific fields as a critical research site for understanding gender and status, and higher education in the United States; 2) summarizes perspectives on women’s stalled advancement and the implications for solutions, including institutional transformation; 3) examines the meaning of institutional transformation as a concept in the study of higher education, and in an organized initiative of the National Science Foundation ADVANCE Institutional Transformation awards and awardees; and 4) considers the prospects for, and limits upon, institutional transformation as a strategy for the advancement of women in academic science and engineering.

Keywords

academia advancement engineering faculty gender higher education institutional transformation rank women science status 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahern, N. & Scott, Elizabeth. (1981). Career outcomes in a matched sample of men and women Ph.D.s. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, E., & Estler, S. (2005). Diversity, privilege, and us: Collaborative curriculum transformation among educational leadership faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 209–232.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. (1976). Creative process. In D. Pelz & F. Andrews, Scientists in organizations (pp. 337–365). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  4. Artz, F. (1966). The development of technical education in France: 1500–1800. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Asmar, C. (2004). Innovations in scholarship at a student-centered research university. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 49–66.Google Scholar
  6. Astin, A., & Associates (2001). The theory and practice of institutional transformation in higher education. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California-Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  7. Astin, A., & Astin, H. S. (Eds.) (2001). Transforming institutions: Context and process. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Astin, H., & Davis, D. (1985). Research productivity across the life- and career-cycles: Facilitators and predictors for women. In M. F. Fox (Ed.), Scholarly writing and publishing: Issues, problems, and solutions (pp. 147–160). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  9. Astin, H., & Sax, L. (1996). Developing scientific talent in undergraduate women. In C. S. Davis, A. Ginorio, C. Hollenshead, B. Lazarus, & P. Rayman (Eds.), The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering (pp. 96–121). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Benezet, L. (1977). Uses and abuses of departments. In D. E. McHenry & Associates (Eds.), Academic departments (pp. 34–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Birnbaum, R. (1992). How colleges work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Blalock, H. (1991). Understanding social inequality: Modeling allocation processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Blau, P. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Bruer, J. (1984). Women in science: Toward equitable participation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 9, 3–7.Google Scholar
  15. Burkhardt, J. (2002). Kellogg forum on higher education transformation. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Postsecondary Education, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  16. Bush, V. (1945/1990). The endless frontier. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Canes, B., & Rosen, H. (1995). Following in her footsteps? Faculty gender composition and women’s choices of college majors. Industrial and labor relations review, 48, 486–504.Google Scholar
  18. Cockburn, C. (1985). Machinery of dominance: Women, men, and technical know-how. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  19. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cole, J., & Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 255, 119–125.Google Scholar
  21. Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Cole, S. (1992). Making science: Between nature and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (CPST) (2006). Professional women and minorities: A total human resource data compendium (16th ed.). Washington, DC: CPST.Google Scholar
  24. Cozzens, S., & Woodhouse, E. (1995). Science, government, and the politics of knowledge. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 533–553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Creamer, E. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 26, no. 2. Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
  26. Cronin, C., & Roger, A. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 637–661.Google Scholar
  27. Daft, R. L. (2004). Organization theory and design. Mason, OH: South-Western Thompson.Google Scholar
  28. Daft, R. L., & Becker, S. (1978). Innovations in organizations. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.Google Scholar
  30. Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity. Research Policy, 34, 349–367.Google Scholar
  31. Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2003a). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  32. Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2003b). Key strategies for making new institutional sense: Ingredients to higher education transformation. Higher Education Policy, 16, 39–53.Google Scholar
  33. Fallon, D. (1980). The German university. Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 13, 285–305.Google Scholar
  35. Fox, M. F. (1985). Publication, performance, and reward in science and scholarship. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 255–282). New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  36. Fox, M. F. (1991). Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. In H. Zuckerman, J. Cole, & J. Bruer (Eds.), The outer circle: Women in the scientific community (pp. 188–204). New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  37. Fox, M. F. (1992a). Research productivity and the environmental context. In T. G. Whiston & R. L. Geiger (Eds.), Research and higher education: The United Kingdom and the United States (pp. 103–111). Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Fox, M. F. (1992b). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293–305.Google Scholar
  39. Fox, M.F. (1995). Women and scientific careers. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 205–223). Thousand Oaks, California: Stage.Google Scholar
  40. Fox, M. F. (1996). Women, academia, and careers in science and engineering. In C. S. Davis, A. Ginorio, C. Hollenshead, B. Lazarus, & P. Rayman (Eds.), The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in science, mathematics, and engineering. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Fox, M. F. (1998). Women in science and engineering: Theory, practice, and policy in programs. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 24, 201–223.Google Scholar
  42. Fox, M. F. (1999). Gender, hierarchy, and science. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of higher education (pp. 441–457). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
  43. Fox, M. F. (2000). Organizational environments and doctoral degrees awarded to women in science and engineering departments. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 28, 47–61.Google Scholar
  44. Fox, M. F. (2001). Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender and Society, 15, 654–666.Google Scholar
  45. Fox, M. F. (2003a). Gender, faculty, and doctoral education in science and engineering. In L. Hornig (Ed.), Equal rites, unequal outcomes: Women in American research universities (pp. 91–109). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
  46. Fox, M. F. (2003b). Georgia Tech ADVANCE survey of faculty perceptions, needs, and experiences. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  47. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35, 131–150.Google Scholar
  48. Fox, M. F. (2006a). Women and academic science: Gender, status and careers. In C. H. Marzabadi, V. J. Kuck, S. A. Nolan, & J. P. Buckner (Eds.), Are women achieving equity in chemistry: Dissolving disparity and catalyzing change (pp. 17–28). New York: Oxford University Press/American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
  49. Fox, M. F. (2006b). Institutional transformation in academic science and engineering: What is at issue. In R. Spalter-Roth, N. L. Fortenberry, & B. Lovitts (Eds.), The acceptance and diffusion of innovation: A cross-curricular perspective on instructional and curricular change in engineering (pp. 49–54). Washington, DC: The American Sociological Association and National Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  50. Fox, M. F., & Braxton, J. M. (1994). Misconduct and social control in science. The Journal of Higher Education, 65, 373–383.Google Scholar
  51. Fox, M. F., & Colatrella, C. (2006). Participation, performance, and advancement of women in academic science and engineering: What is at issue and why. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 377–386.Google Scholar
  52. Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1985). Men, women, and publication productivity: Patterns among social work academics. The Sociological Quarterly, 26, 537–549.Google Scholar
  53. Fox, M. F., & Mohapatra, S. (2007). Social-organizational characteristics of work and publication productivity among academic scientists in doctoral-granting departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 542–571.Google Scholar
  54. Fox, M. F., Colatrella, C., McDowell, D., & Realff, M. L. (2007). Equity in tenure and promotion: An integrated institutional approach. In A. Stewart, J. Malley, & D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.), Transforming science and engineering: Advancing academic women (pp. 170–186). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  55. Garvey, W. (1979). Communication: The essence of science. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  56. Geiger, R. (1993). Research, graduate education, and the ecology of American universities: An interpretive history. In S. Rothblatt & B. Winrock (Eds.), The European and American university since 1800 (pp. 234–259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370–403.Google Scholar
  58. Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 1081–1111.Google Scholar
  59. Grant, L., Kennelly, I., & Ward, K. (2000). Revisiting the gender, marriage, and productivity puzzle in scientific careers. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 28, 62–83.Google Scholar
  60. Hacker, S. (1989). Pleasure, power, and technology. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  61. Hacker, S. (1990). “Doing it the hard way”: Investigations of gender and technology. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  62. Hackett, G., Esposito, D., & O’Halloran, M. S. (1989). The relationship of role model influences to the career salience and educational plans of college women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 164–180.Google Scholar
  63. Hanson, S. (1996). Lost talent: Women in the sciences. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Harrison, M. I. (1994). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models, and processes (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Hearn, J. C. (1996). Transforming U.S. higher education: An organizational perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 21, 141–154.Google Scholar
  66. Helmreich, R., Spence, J., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G. W., & Matthews, K. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896–908.Google Scholar
  67. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Keller, E. F. (1995). The origin, history, and politics of the subject called ‘gender and science.’ In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 80–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Keup, J., Astin, H. S., Lindholm, J. A., & Walker, A. A. (2001). Organizational culture and institutional transformation. In A. Astin & H. Astin (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Context and process (pp. 17–40). Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California-Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  70. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 435–460.Google Scholar
  71. Kyvik, S. (1990). Motherhood and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 20, 149–60.Google Scholar
  72. Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, theories. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  73. Lindman, J. M., & Tahamont, M. (2006). Transforming selves, transforming courses: Faculty and staff development and the construction of interdisciplinary diversity courses. Innovative Higher Education, 30, 289–304.Google Scholar
  74. Long, J. S. (1987). Discussion: Problems and prospects for research on sex differences. In L. S. Dix (Ed.), Women: Their underrepresentation and career differentials in science and engineering (pp. 157–169). Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  75. Long, J. S. (1990). The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68, 1297–1315.Google Scholar
  76. Long, J. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 71, 159–178.Google Scholar
  77. Long, J. S. (Ed.) (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  78. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71.Google Scholar
  79. Long, J. S., & McGinnis, R. (1981). Organizational context and scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 46, 422–442.Google Scholar
  80. Long, J. S., Allison, P., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and their effects upon productivity. American Sociological Review, 58, 816–830.Google Scholar
  81. Merton, R. K. (1942/1973). The normative structure of science. In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 267–278). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. Mitroff, I. (1974). Norms and counternorms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 379–395.Google Scholar
  83. Montgomery, S. L. (1994). Minds for the making: The role of science in American education, 1750–1990. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  84. Mulkay, M. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15, 627–636.Google Scholar
  85. Mullins, N. (1973). Science: Some sociological perspectives. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  86. National Science Foundation (2001). ADVANCE—Increasing the participation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers. Program solicitation 01–69. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf0169/nsf0169.htm.
  87. National Science Foundation (NSF) (2007) NSF at a Glance. Retrieved July 1, 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
  88. Neave, G. (2004). The vision of reform—the form of resistance. Higher Education Policy, 17, 237–240.Google Scholar
  89. Noble, D. (1977). America by design. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  90. Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1997). Organizational transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 235–254.Google Scholar
  91. Pearson, W., & Fechter, A. (Eds.) (1994). Who will do science? Educating the next generation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Pelz, D., & Andrews, F. M. (1976). Scientists in organizations: Productive climates for research and development. Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  93. Reskin, B. (1978a). Scientific productivity, sex, and location in the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 1235–1243.Google Scholar
  94. Reskin, B. (1978b). Sex differentiation and the social organization of science. Sociological Inquiry, 48, 6–37.Google Scholar
  95. Reskin, B. (2003). Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. American Sociological Review, 68, 1–21.Google Scholar
  96. Robinson, J. G., & Mcllwee, J. (1989). Women in engineering: A promise unfulfilled? Social Problems, 36, 455–472.Google Scholar
  97. Rosser, S., & Lane, E. O. (2002). A history of funding for women’s programs at the National Science Foundation. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 327–346.Google Scholar
  98. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1974). The bases and use of power in organizational decision making: The case of the university. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 453–473.Google Scholar
  99. Schneider, I. (1981). Introduction. In H. Mehrtens, H. Bos, & I Schneider (Eds.), Social history of nineteenth century mathematics (pp. 75–88). Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  100. Sharpe, N. R., & Sonnert, G. (1999). Proportions of women faculty and students in the mathematical sciences: A trend analysis by institutional group. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 17–27.Google Scholar
  101. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1995). Gender differences in science careers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Sonnert, G., Fox, M. F., & Adkins, K. (2007). Undergraduate women in science and engineering: Effects of faculty, fields, and institutions over time. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 285–308.Google Scholar
  105. Stake, J. E., & Noonan, M. (1983). The influence of teacher models on the career confidence and motivation of college students. Sex Roles, 12, 1023–1031.Google Scholar
  106. Sturm, S. (2006). The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29, 247–334.Google Scholar
  107. Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  108. Ward, K., & Grant, L. (1996). Gender and academic publishing. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11, pp. 171–222). New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  109. Whitman, N., & Weiss, E. (1982). Faculty evaluation: The use of explicit criteria for promotion, retention, and tenure. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  110. Wischnevsky, J. D., & Damanpour, F. (2006). Organizational transformation and performance: An examination of three perspectives. Journal of Managerial Issues, 28, 104–128.Google Scholar
  111. Wolfle, D. (1972). The home of science: The role of the university. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  112. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (1997). Modeling the sex-typing of occupational choice. Sociological methods and research, 23, 233–261.Google Scholar
  113. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Zuckerman, H. (1988). The sociology of science. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 511–574). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  115. Zuckerman, H., Cole, J., & Bruer, J. (1991). The outer circle: Women in the scientific community. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Frank Fox
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Women, Science, and TechnologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations