Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Academic Capitalism and the Faculty Salary Gap

  • Published:
Innovative Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the academic capitalist knowledge regime, institutions compete for prestige and funding. Reward structures emphasize science and engineering (S&E) fields for their potential to generate money and status. Masculine norms and male majority in S&E fields may create conditions for gender differences in faculty compensation. We explored the relationship between institutional S&E emphasis and the faculty salary gap at 130 public research universities. Findings suggest that the salary gap for full professors varies over time - decreasing at institutions with the greatest S&E emphasis and increasing at institutions with lower levels of S&E emphasis. Context matters when exploring gender differences in institutional rewards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The eight institutions dropped due to missing control data for all years were Pennsylvania State University, University of Delaware, University of Pittsburgh, University of Toledo, Wright State University, University of Akron, Rutgers University-Newark, and Temple University.

References

  • Acker, J. (1989). Doing comparable worth: Gender, class and pay equity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. (2006). Class questions: Feminist answers. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, S. (2017). Family of future in the academy? Review of Educational Research, 87, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonio, A. L., Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. M. (2000). Community service in higher education: A look at the nation's faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 373–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibald, R. N., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does college cost so much? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R. G., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change, 40(5), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbezat, D. A., & Hughes, J. W. (2005). Salary structure effects and the gender pay gap in academia. Research in Higher Education, 46, 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, S. N. (2016). The changing finances of public higher education organizations: Diversity, change and discontinuity. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 46, 223–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beddoes, K., & Pawley, A. L. (2014). “Different people have different priorities”: Work–family balance, gender, and the discourse of choice. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 1573–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellas, M. L. (1993). Faculty salaries: Still a cost of being female? Social Science Quarterly, 74, 62–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellas, M. L. (1994). Comparable worth in academia: The effects on faculty salaries of the sex composition and labor-market conditions of academic disciplines. American Sociological Review, 59, 807–821. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellas, M. L. (1997). Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries: Does gender bias play a role? The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 299–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benschop, Y., & Brouns, M. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and Organization, 10, 194–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). CPI detailed report: Data for December 2011 [Data File]. Available from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm

  • Callister, R. R. (2006). The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cama, M. G., Jorge, M. L., & Peña, F. J. A. (2016). Gender differences between faculty members in higher education: A literature review of selected higher education journals. Educational Research Review, 18, 58–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Linear panel models: Basics. In Microeconometrics: Methods and applications (pp. 697–742). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C., & O’Meara, K. (2014). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55, 49–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. (2013). Global status, intra-institutional stratification and organizational segmentation: A time-dynamic Tobit analysis of ARWU position among U.S. universities. Minerva, 51, 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9228-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. J. (2015). The rise of the postdoctorate and the restructuring of academic research. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 667–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, B., Taylor, B. J., & Johnson, N. (2018). Ordering the global field of academic science: Money, mission, and position. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1506916

  • Castilla, E. J. (2007). Longitudinal analysis of quantitative variables. In Dynamic analysis in the social sciences (pp. 44–129). London, England: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cataldi, E.F., Fahimi, M., & Bradburn, E.M. (2005). 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff in Fall 2003 (NCES 2005–172). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

  • Creamer, E. G. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(2), 5–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demb, A., & Wade, A. (2012). Reality check: Faculty involvement in outreach & engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 83, 337–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, F. M., & Yao, B. (2014). Gender differences in faculty attrition in the USA. Community, Work & Family, 17, 392–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagan Jr., M. K., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with faculty productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 923–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, M. (2008). Gender differences in the causes of work and family strain among academic faculty. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17, 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, A. (2009). Disciplinary cultures in mechanical engineering and materials science: Gendered/gendering practices? Equal Opportunities International, 28, 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L. D. (2013). Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalizing ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. Review of Higher Education, 36, 179–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Framing faculty agency inside striving universities: An application of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. The Journal of Higher Education, 85, 193–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, L. D., & Nuñez, A. M. (2014). The ranking regime and the production of knowledge: Implications for academia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(31), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, K. A., & Reddick, R. J. (2011). Surveillance and sacrifice gender differences in the mentoring patterns of Black professors at predominantly White research universities. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1032–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaquette, O., & Parra, E. E. (2014). Using IPEDS for panel analyses: Core concepts, data challenges, and empirical applications. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. 29 (pp. 467–533). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, T. A. (2015). Event history analysis: A primer for higher education researchers. In I. J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 71–91). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20, 754–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect expenditures within research universities? Research in Higher Education, 53, 614–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27, 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maranto, C. L., & Griffin, A. E. (2010). The antecedents of a “chilly climate” for women faculty in higher education. Human Relations, 64, 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2012). The “public” contributions of universities in an increasingly global world. In B. Pusser, K. Kempner, S. Marginson, & I. Orodika (Eds.), Universities and the public sphere: Knowledge creation and state building in the era of globalization (pp. 7–26). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2016). Global stratification in higher education. In S. Slaughter & B. J. Taylor (Eds.), Higher education, stratification and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US and Canada (pp. 13–34). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, P. (2012). The role of context in academic capitalism: The industry-friendly department case. Journal of Higher Education, 83, 26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misra, J., Lundquist, J., Holmes, E. D., & Agiomavritis, S. (2009). Associate professors and gendered barriers to advancement. Retrieved from https://philosophy.ku.edu/sites/philosophy.ku.edu/files/docs/mentoring_documents/Gendered%20Barriers%20to%20Advancement.pdf

  • National Science Board (2014). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation (2016). NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates [Data file]. Available from https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar/

  • O’Meara, K. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. 22 (pp. 121–179). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, K. (2011). Inside the panopticon: Studying academic reward systems. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research 26 (pp. 161–220). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn't women's work count? The Journal of Higher Education, 67, 46–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W. (2001). Sex differences in faculty salaries: A cohort analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 288–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. (2014). Extending academic capitalism by foregrounding academic labor. In B. Cantwell & I. Kauppinen (Eds.), Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (pp. 113–134). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosinger, K. O., Taylor, B. J., Coco, L., & Slaughter, S. (2016). Organizational segmentation and the prestige economy: Deprofessionalization in high- and low-resource departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 87, 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market. Higher Education, 63, 583–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the enterpreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (2016). State higher education funding. Boulder, CO: SHEEO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tatum, H. E., Schwartz, B. M., Schimmoeller, P. A., & Perry, N. (2013). Classroom participation and student-faculty interactions: Does gender matter? The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 745–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. J. (2016). The field dynamics of stratification among US research universities: The expansion of federal support for academic research, 2000-2008. In S. Slaughter & B. J. Taylor (Eds.), Stratification, privatization and vocationalization of higher education in the US and EU: Competitive advantage (pp. 59–80). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2018). Unequal higher education: Wealth, status and student opportunity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., & Slaughter, S. (2013). Quasi-markets in US higher education: Humanities emphasis and institutional revenues. The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 675–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2010). 2005 data file [Data file and code book]. Available from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/downloads.php

  • Toutkoushian, R. K., & Conley, V. M. (2005). Progress for women in academe, yet inequities persist: Evidence from NSOPF:99. Research in Higher Education, 46, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-6287-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary System (IPEDS) (2016). Custom files for 2003–2011 [Data files]. Available from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/selectVariables.aspx

  • Umbach, P. D. (2007). Gender equity in the academic labor market: An analysis of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 48, 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9043-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volk, C. S., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. L. (2001). Models of institutional resource allocation: Mission, market, and gender. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 387–413 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2672889

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2010). The use of panel data models in higher education policy studies. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 307–349). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA

    Jessica A. Johnson

  2. University of North Texas, Denton, TX, 76203, USA

    Barrett J. Taylor

Authors
  1. Jessica A. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barrett J. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica A. Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, J.A., Taylor, B.J. Academic Capitalism and the Faculty Salary Gap. Innov High Educ 44, 21–35 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9445-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9445-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation