ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

As part of the ongoing work by the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession (CSWP), we offer an empirical analysis of the pipeline problem in academia. The image of a pipeline is a commonly advanced explanation for persistent discrimination that suggests that gender inequality will decline once there are sufficient numbers of qualified women in the hiring pool. The CSWP believes that it is important to ask whether this phenomenon is actually occurring, because the implication is that we can explain inequality as a function of insufficient numbers of trained women in the pool, rather than as a result of ongoing discrimination that requires alternate remedies. Data from the American Association of University Professors suggests that merely increasing the pool of qualified women has not led to a commensurate number of women rising to the top in academia. Women are still ending up in lower paid jobs, and they continue to earn less than men in comparable positions. More aggressive policies to end discrimination are required.
No caption available
Content may be subject to copyright.
Gender Equality in the Academy:
The Pipeline Problem
Kristen Renwick Monroe, University of California, Irvine
William F. Chiu, University of California, Irvine
On behalf of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession
ABST RACT As part of the ongoing work by the Committee on the Status of Women in the
Profession (CSWP), we oer an empirical analysis of the pipeline problem in academia.
The image of a pipeline is a commonly advanced explanation for persistent discrimination
that suggests that gender inequality will decline once there are sucient numbers of qual-
ified women in the hiring pool. The CSWP believes that it is important to ask whether this
phenomenon is actually occurring, because the implication is that we can explain inequal-
ity as a function of insucient numbers of trained women in the pool, rather than as a
result of ongoing discrimination that requires alternate remedies. Data from the American
Association of University Professors suggests that merely increasing the pool of qualified
women has not led to a commensurate number of women rising to the top in academia.
Women are still ending up in lower paid jobs, and they continue to earn less than men in
comparable positions. More aggressive policies to end discrimination are required.
Is gender equality a dead political issue? The political cam-
paigns of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin in the 2008 U.S.
presidential election indicate otherwise. Charges were lev-
ied that the women faced dierential standards for report-
age and candidate evaluation, and the charges themselves
then became contentious. If bias cleaves along gender lines, dis-
crimination should logically extend beyond politics into the work-
place at large, including academia. It takes a particular blend of
moral courage and integrity to examine inequities in one’s own
house, and university administrators have a mixed record in
responding to examinations of gender equality in academia. Pres-
idents such as Charles Vest at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology (MIT) have embraced the examination, even when it
revealed ongoing discrimination among his faculty. Not all uni-
versity presidents have demonstrated such admirable responses,
however, with too many administrators feeling criticized and
responding defensively rather than acknowledging the problem
and working creatively to solve it. Female college presidents have
been noteworthy for their approaches, and several of these women
were highlighted at the 2008 APSA Panel sponsored by the Com-
mittee on the Status of Women in the Profession (CSWP), includ-
ing presidents Carol Christ (Smith College), Amy Gutmann
(University of Pennsylvania), Nannerl Keohane (Wellesley Col-
lege and Duke University), and Dale Rogers Marshall (Wheaton
College). The importance of positioning women in university pres-
idencies illustrates one of the most frequently advanced solutions
for gender discrimination: get qualified women in the pipeline
and they will naturally work their way to the top, where their
unique experiences will lead to policies that will end gender dis-
crimination. Although there is some truth, and certainly many
nuances to this position that could be discussed, here we focus on
one particular aspect of the pipeline argument: the belief that gen-
der inequality will decline once there are sucient numbers of
qualified women in the pool. It is important to ask whether this
phenomenon is in fact occurring, because the implication of the
pipeline argument is that we can explain inequality as a function
of insucient numbers of trained women in the pool, rather than
as a result of ongoing discrimination that requires alternate
The CSWP examined the pipeline argument using an analysis
of aggregate data from the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP). This article summarizes a more complex and
thorough analysis (Chiu and Monroe 2010) that confirms prior
University of California, Irvine, and MIT findings using qualita-
tive interview data to conclude that discrimination continues in
Kristen Renwick Monroe is a professor of political science and philosophy and director
of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality at the Uni-
versity of California, Irvine. A past president of the International Society of Political Psy-
chology, Dr. Monroe is an expert on altruism and its implications for social and moral
theory. She can be reached at
William F.Chiu is a Ph.D. candidate in political science with an emphasis in political psy-
chology at the University of California, Irvine. His thesis examines political communi-
cation and speech on the Internet. He holds degrees from Georgetown University and the
University of California, Berkeley. He can be reached at
The Profession
doi:10.1017/S104909651000017X PS • April 2010 303
academia. National statistics clearly show that there are fewer
American women working in academia than expected, given the
relatively comparable numbers of female graduate students enter-
ing the market now. Further, women are employed at lower status
institutions and ranked at lower grades in the same institutions,
and they earn less at each grade compared to their male counter-
parts. An examination of alternate explanations—other than
discrimination—finds these reasons unconvincing and uncon-
firmed by the aggregate data. The data thus suggest the existence
of a glass ceiling that manifests itself as a filter at the highest rank
and levels of prestige. Women participate at deteriorating levels
as ranks rise at colleges, universities, and research institutions. At
the highest level—the research I institution—women constitute
10.9% of assistant professors but only 7.2% of full professors. This
disparity in numbers between men and women is both striking
and extremely troubling, because the aggregate data suggest that
this disparity represents a problem of advancement and not an
absence of qualified female candidates. Space constraints limit
the material we can present here, and much of the nuance is lost
in an overview; nonetheless, tables 1 through 9 demonstrate the
problem with assuming that simply increasing the pool of quali-
fied women will end discrimination.
Essentially, income inequality within an institutional class does
not appear to worsen on a per capita basis; at a given level, the gap
in pay for men and women appears constant. But the type of insti-
tution in which women find work and the dierential curves that
attach to each type reveal stark dierences in career slope (see
figure 1) between the community college and research university
levels. The aggregate statistics presented in tables 4–7 and fig-
ure 1 suggest the glass ceiling in academia is not merely one bar-
rier at the very top of academia but instead exists as a sorting
mechanism throughout the academic workplace. Note the dier-
entials in employment density in tables 4 and 5, the dierentials
in gross pay in table 6 and the average pay within grade for men
and women in table 7. Because the percentage of women in the
pool of professors has increased since the 1980s without compa-
rable improvement in the percentage of women in the professori-
ate, the pipeline approach will not fix this gender inequity. More
focused and systematic policies are required.
Our analysis thus substantiates other studies using aggregate
data, which find both wage and hiring dierentials (NSF Science
and Engineering Indicators 2008) and a glass ceiling (Cotter et al.
2001) in the academy. Scholars also find surprising gender bias in
more focused assessments of worth, such as the dierential eval-
uations of academic citations (Johnson 1997) and the peer review
process (Wenneras and Wold 1997). Women are cited less than
men and suer from gender bias in the review process itself, with
experimental tests revealing bias in evaluations of the same work,
depending on whether the author is listed as a man or a woman.
Both these experimental tests and extensive in-depth interview
data with female faculty at MIT (2002; 1999) and the University
of California, Irvine (Monroe et al. 2008), oer more detailed sys-
tematic evidence that gender equality in academia remains only a
partially realized goal, with women still struggling to crack a glass
ceiling that remains strong and oppressive for all but a fortunate
What is the implication of these studies? More active policies
by university administrations and professional societies—such as
APSA—are required to eliminate gender inequality in the academy.
Given the standard set forth in Title IX, equity in outcomes is not
just economically optimal (Becker 1971) or socially desirable, but
also legally necessary. Our full analysis begins with the important
Title IX, which creates a legal overhang of punishment for trans-
gression. Interpreted using the standard rational actor logic of
economics, a rational individual would not discriminate because
of the disincentives and penalty of litigation and punishment.
Developed further, one might assume that compliance is the con-
ventional practice and discrimination the outlier. Accepting such
a premise, one might search for some other explanation for the
gender equity gap in academic wages and placement. The pipe-
line argument, in which the constitution of the workplace reflects
the output over time of a stream of trainees, oers a palliative by
which disproportions are remedied incrementally as talented indi-
viduals of a particular ascriptive characteristic—gender, race, or
ethnicity, for example—enter the workforce. In addition, the pipe-
line solution suggests that problems such as tokenism and status
expectations will be ameliorated naturally. As the number of
women increases, sheer numbers and forced social contact should
mitigate stratification based on homophily (i.e., preference for
same gender), segregated social networking and mentoring, and
Table 1
Graduate School Enrollment and Doctoral
Degree Attainment 2006
Women Men Women Men
54 46 48 52
Source: Council of Graduate Schools 2007
Table 2
Male and Female Share of Academic Ranks
Rank Men Women
Professor 23.5 8.2
Associate Professor 15.9 10.8
Assistant Professor 14.1 13.2
Lecturer 2.8 3.4
All 59.7 40.3
Source: American Association of University Professors 2008
Table 3
Percentage of Faculty, by Track and Gender
Te n u r e 6 0. 0 4 1 .6
Tenure-Track 21.1 26.2
Nontenure 18.9 32.2
The Profession: Gender Equality in the Academy
304 PS • April 2010
the tendency to characterize success and authority in masculine
terms (Roth 2004). Finally, one might suppose that a rich pipeline
of qualified individuals would ultimately result in women rising
to the top over time, thus breaking the glass ceiling naturally and
without requiring specific policies to end gender discrimination.
A concomitant hypothesis is that inequitable pay today is a snap-
shot of past asymmetries in human talent that have persisted over
time, rather than discrimination practiced on individuals today.
On its surface, the pipeline argument is appealing—what goes
in must come out, and today’s accomplished senior faculty reflect
yesterday’s narrow pool. If the entrance to the pipeline is based
purely on choice and more men have chosen to enter it than
women, then the gender gap is a reflection of aggregate individ-
ual will, rather than systematic bias. Closer inspection, however,
reveals flaws of omission in this analysis. The pipeline is not
lossless—individuals who enter might drop out as a result of sys-
temic patterns of bias in the mentoring faculty pool—and it extends
beyond degree-granting programs into tenure-track and advance-
ment programs, describing a career trajectory rather than a pipe-
line that is demarcated arbitrarily at the point of earning a Ph.D.
What explains the patterns in employment rank and pay at
the major higher education tiers? Studies of academic and com-
mensurate private sector and federal jobs indicate that a larger
pipeline does not lead to more women in higher status positions,
given the problems in the advancement mechanism (Myers and
Turner 2004; Roth 2004; Powell and Butterfield 1997). If mentor-
ing is one key to advancement, the lack of women in a position to
mentor leads to inferior group results for women, as compared to
men (Smeby 2000). Such reports suggest that a closer look at the
pipeline is warranted prior to accepting it as an explanatory frame
for gender patterns in the academic marketplace.
We thus examined pipeline arguments to determine whether
gender discrimination in academia is being corrected as more
women enter the graduate school pool and move through the sys-
tem. Our analysis uses aggregate data collected by the AAUP on
the status of women in higher education in the United States over
(roughly) the last 30 years—years that saw increased eorts to
expand the pool of women entering the academic market. Analy-
sis of these data suggests that the percentage of women in the
academy remains disproportionately low, and that those women
who do succeed in finding an academic job, as well as women
overall, still earn less for the same job than their male counter-
parts. The pattern in academia thus reflects the male/female wage
gap that has characterized the U.S. economy since analysts began
tracking such data in the 1970s.
The questions then become: Why does this pattern exist? Does
this pattern represent ongoing discrimination? Part I of our full
study outlines the legal and economic context for our analysis. In
particular, we ask if there are explanations (Becker 1971) other
than discrimination that might account for dierential treatment
of male and female faculty. Part II analyzes these economic expla-
nations using AAUP data and finds no economic explanation that
can fully explain the gender gap. The persistence of ongoing, if
subtle, gender discrimination remains the far more plausible expla-
nation. A fairly extensive aggregate analysis of statistical data on
gender discrimination within academia thus confirms the results
of the more impressionistic, interview data presented in the
University of California, Irvine, and MIT studies. Glass ceilings
Table 6
Women’s Average Salary as a Percentage
of Men’s, by Rank and Institution
Professor 91.0 94.9 95.3 96.4
Associate Professor 92.3 95.8 97.8 97.3
Assistant Professor 92.0 96.0 97.6 98.0
Overall 78.2 87.6 89.8 95.3
Table 4
Percent of Faculty, by Academic Rank at Major Institutions and by Gender
RANK Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Professor 28.1 7.2 19.6 8.3 19.8 9.2 15.7 14.0
Associate Professor 16.4 9.8 15.6 11.5 16.4 12.5 11.5 11.4
Assistant Professor 13.4 10.9 14.7 15.1 15.6 16.5 12.5 14.4
Instructor 2.1 3.1 2.4 4.1 2.8 4.1 7.7 9.3
Lecturer 3.3 3.9 3.0 3.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.9
Other 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2
Overall 64.2 35.9 56.2 43.7 56.1 43.9 48.9 51.2
Note: Total faculty sizes:doctoral ~research institutions!,
=178,584; master’s ~universities!,
=118,557; bachelor’s ~colleges!,
= 50,557; two-year~community colleges!,
Table 5
Type of Employing Institution, by Gender
Research 52.3 43.2
University 30.4 35
College 12.9 15.0
Two -Yea r C o l l e ge 4. 4 6.8
Source: American Association of University Professors 2008
PS • April 2010 305
are multiple and resilient. Worse, analysis suggests gender inequal-
ity will not be alleviated significantly through the natural projec-
tion of more women into the pool of graduate school. More positive
eorts will be necessary to end gender inequality in academia.
We know that gender inequality exists as a political problem in
much of the world, but how promising is the situation for women
within the American academy itself? Aggregate statistics confirm
the discouraging view of gender equality gleaned from interview
data about the situation for women in academia (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology [MIT] 1999; MIT 2002; Monroe et al.
2008). An evaluation of the big picture enhances our view into the
material context in which female faculty operate. National statis-
tics clearly show that fewer women work in academia than would
be expected, given the relatively comparable numbers of male and
female graduate students currently entering the market. Overall,
women are employed at lower status institu-
tions. Women are ranked at lower grades, and
they earn less at each grade compared to their
male counterparts. We have tried to scrupulously
and objectively examine possible explanations for
these realities other than discrimination, but we
find these explanations unconvincing and uncon-
firmed by the aggregate data. Why would a
woman fail to enter the academy after earning a
costly doctoral degree? Under a human capital
argument, it defies economic logic for a woman
to expend such eort in time and money to earn
a credential and then not seek full financial
recompense. No rational person would work so hard for such mea-
ger gain; indeed, one would surmise that the commitment to an
academic career is tested in the graduate school process, and that
less-committed people would drop out. Survivors thus should
thrive precisely because they have demonstrated deeper commit-
ment. Yet women, who comprise nearly half of all doctoral degree
conferees, suer an attrition rate of nearly one in six and consti-
tute only 40% of professors.
If there is a glass ceiling, it would manifest itself as a filter at
the highest rank and level of prestige. Our analysis finds that
women do, in fact, participate in the academy at deteriorating
levels as ranks rise at colleges, universities, and research institu-
tions. At the highest level—the research I institution—women con-
stitute 10.9% of assistant professors but only 7.2% of full professors.
This disparity in numbers between men and women is both strik-
ing and extremely troubling, since —as the aggregate data suggest—
this disparity represents a
problem of advancement and
not an absence of candidates.
Income inequality within an
institutional class does not
appear to worsen on a per cap-
ita basis; at any given level, the
gap in pay for men and women
appears constant. The shape
and slope of the curves in fig-
ure 1 show that female and male
professors at research institu-
tions appear to track similar
rates of remuneration as their
rank increases; however, note that the curve for women is shifted
markedly lower compared with that for men. The gaps reveal that
women consistently earn 3% to 8% less than men. Is the gap a
result of human capital or bias? At what dierential does the acad-
emy need to pursue more granular study?
In addition, our comparison of institutional classes under-
scores the striking disparity in pay. As women move from lower
to higher ranking institutions, pay inequalities increase. A 3% aver-
age gap at the community college level becomes an 8% percent
gap at the research I institution level. Understanding the job place-
ment system in academia as a whole may shed light on the distri-
bution of jobs in the industry.The labor market is segmented into
two broad categories: jobs with and without long-term security. It
is further stratified into many small niches of expertise in depart-
ments, fields, subfields, and specialties. The nature of teaching
and research distinguishes the advancement process in academia
from the private sector through the tenure system, which
Table 8
Comparison of University of California,
Irvine, Academic Salaries for a Given Rank
and Step, by Field
Regular $ 95,000
Business/Economics/Engineering $109,500
Health Sciences $135,600
Source: University of California, Irvine, Department ofAcademic Personnel 2009.
The University of California operateson a step system, in which faculty are hired as
an assistant professor ~step 1!and then advance up the steps in one category
before advancing to the next category ~e.g., associate professor!.Step 3denotesa
full professorship.
Table 7
Percentile Scale of Average Salary, by Gender, Rank,
and Institution Type
Rank Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Professor 62 49 61 54 59 53 56 51
Associate Professor 67 51 60 49 57 51 53 46
Assistant Professor 66 53 66 61 60 52 50 50
Table 9
Average Salaries, by Gender, Rank, and Institution Type ($)
RANK Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Professor 120,661 109,853 88,632 84,073 84,829 80,822 73,024 70,386
Associate Professor 84,356 76,155 69,890 63,465 64,896 63,465 59,282 57,692
Assistant Professor 70,650 65,002 58,762 56,402 54,031 52,710 51,742 50,697
Overall 93,869 73,383 70,976 62,153 67,521 60,631 59,044 56,298
The Profession: Gender Equality in the Academy
306 PS • April 2010
safeguards the freedom to pursue knowledge. What if tenure oper-
ates as an early gate that constrains career trajectory at entry?
Tenure-track employees are not “at-will” and cannot easily be
fired or furloughed. Here we need to acknowledge the operational
context of the university. As an economic entity, the university
must balance economic priorities such as cost-control and cost-
certainty. Management of the labor pool is driven by academic
and economic interests. Given the inflexibility of tenure jobs, the
university may well oer a mix of jobs that enables it to maintain
overall labor flexibility. Some candidates are oered tenure-track
positions, others lectureships. This mix may manifest itself sys-
temically as a filter system that channels women to various loca-
tions in the university hierarchy. More important, if gates between
institutional levels are one-way, then a person who starts out at a
lesser organization is likely to be confined to advancement at that
level. In this vein, two indicators may show more clearly how the
glass ceiling manifests itself in the academy.The head-count data
displayed in table 4 indicate the operation of a quota system: men
are overrepresented and, as a group, earn the lion’s share of avail-
able income. This also can be seen in the individual-level data,
which show that women earn 90% of the amount that men earn
on a per capita basis, but collectively earn 21% less.
Wherewomen go atthe critical juncture ofselecting institution
type matters a great deal, and the dierential curves that attach to
each type show the slope dierence between a community college
and the research university level. As figure 1 details, the slope indi-
cates pay dierence. Women in economics, for example, are signif-
icantly less likely than men to earn tenure at their first academic
job (Ginther and Kahn 2004). A slower launch into a career pro-
duces a shallow trajectory that results in impaired compensation
over the duration. Location of hiring also matters, because presti-
gious universities may provide improved conditions for publica-
tion, which in turn lead to greater material benefits. A move up or
downin prestige further appears
to lead to a statistically signifi-
cant increase or decline in pro-
ductivity (Allison and Long
1990).Tenuredierentiates aca-
demia from the private sector,
because tenure track positions
require a large commitment in
time. Moreover, tenure status is
not easily transported, because
higher education is not an open
labor market. A tenure-track
position is an invitation to a
long-term association. All of
these characteristics make the
importance of the first job quite
significant.Although no one has
conducted such an exercise for
academia, estimates from the
private sector market suggest a
professional woman loses an
average of $1 million over a life-
time of employment, merely by
failing to successfully negotiate
the terms of her first position
(Babcock and Lavescher 2003).
The nature of voting rules
may also act as a filter: senior faculty promote junior faculty to
their ranks. Although this process is opaque, one can imagine
that the reasoning behind elevation and compensation decisions
may be aected by implicit or even explicit discrimination. The
elevation of a candidate necessarily involves subjective as well as
objective metrics. If tenured and senior male faculty interact with
junior and scarce female colleagues, interaction may follow arche-
types described by theories of tokenism (Kanter 1977) and a fun-
damental disconnect in lived experiences in the workplace (Hale
1999). For women with multiple roles—be they ethnic, gender, or
familial—the proportion of women of multiple marginalities in a
given workplace environment (i.e., when compared with white
men or women) also aects perceptions and demands in the pro-
fessional sphere (Turner 2002). The role of women in governance
may aect the procedures instituted for advancement (Moore
1987). Whether systematic patterns that favor men over women
guide advancement or individual consideration results in
unintended collective gender bias cannot be known without fur-
ther investigation. Given the confidentiality of tenure and promo-
tion, we can only surmise the types of practices that are extant.
But the aggregate statistics presented here suggest the glass ceil-
ing in academia is not one barrier at the very top of academia, but
instead exists at many levels throughout the academic work-
Because the percentage of women in the pool of professors
has increased since the 1980s without comparable improvement
in the percentage of women in the professoriate, the pipeline will
not fix this gender inequity.
Finally, the overhanging presence of Title IX must not deter
administrators from tackling this issue for fear of litigation. Inter-
view data suggest countenancing this is a serious problem, with
litigation-shy administrators fearful of acknowledging the exis-
tence of gender discrimination because it leaves them liable to
lawsuits. The result of this reluctance is too often a cumbersome
Figure 1
Trajectory of Average Wage, by Rank and Institutional Type
Note: Rsch =research university; R1= research university; CC= community college.
PS • April 2010 307
bureaucracy that was established to protect against discrimina-
tion but ultimately protects the institution against claims of dis-
crimination. Collegiality, meritocracy, and common endeavor
should guide the academy to act on the spirit of Title IX in proac-
tively addressing inequity. More focused and systematic policies
are required to end discrimination. !
1. We find it debatable whether women choose a job based on an estimation of
the level of female domination within a particular subsector. If long-term earn-
ing potential is depressed at a college or community college, economic logic
alone makes it unlikely that, given a research I alternative, a woman would
choose these sectors, even if they are paid at a rate equal to that of men. All
things being equal, it seems logical that a choice to take a job at a college or a
university is as much exogenous as endogenous. If research universities set
criteria that women cannot easily meet—because they are raising children or
caring for elderly family members, for example—then structural impediments
constrain their array of choices, and they are forced to select from a subset of
men’s choices. If women choose a community college because they care less
about money and more about nonmonetary compensation, then college jobs
may prove appealing. But when one considers the advantages—higher pay,
higher status, and less classroom time, all of which result in the increase in
individual freedom provided by a research university—it seems illogical that
women would deliberately choose community college positions for family
reasons. This is not to deny that work conditions can be construed in more
than monetary terms. For academics, the resource pool that is on tap, in terms
of colleagues, students, graduate programs, libraries, and facilities, among
other factors, may be of equal or greater importance than a salary. On a basic
level, the desire to work at the university level and above may simply act as an
aspiration to actualize one’s intellectual ambition. The economic data reveal a
system that distributes monetary rewards unevenly, but the loss to the aca-
demic community may be greater than the loss to the individual. As a teacher,
icon, role model, and mentor, a professor oers guidance to future generations
of workers and leaders, scholars and professionals. The voice as a function of
critical mass may thus be silenced if, at the highest levels, one group dominates
Allison, Paul, and J. Scott Long. 1990. “Departmental Eects on Scientific Produc-
tivity.” American Sociological Review 55: 469–78.
American Association of University Professors. 2008. “The Annual Report on the
Economic Status of the Profession, 2007–08.”
comm/rep/Z/ecstatreport2007-08/survey2007-08.htm (accessed April 20, 2008).
Babcock, Linda, and Sara Lavescher. 2003. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiations and the
Gender Divide.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Becker, Gary. 1971. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Chiu, William, and Kristen Monroe. 2010. “Gender Equality and the Pipeline
Problem in Academia.” Under review.
Cotter, David, J. Hermsen, S. Ovadia, and R. Vanneman. 2001. “The Glass Ceiling
Eect.” Social Forces 80: 655–82.
Council of Graduate Schools. 2007. Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 1996–2006. (accessed April
20, 2008).
Ginther, Donna, and Shulamit Kahn. 2004. “Women in Economics: Moving Up or
Falling Othe Academic Career Ladder?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 18
(3): 193–214.
Hale, Mary. 1999. “He Says, She Says: Gender and Worklife.” Public Administration
Review 59: 410–24.
Johnson, Dan. 1997. “Getting Noticed in Economics: The Determinants of Aca-
demic Citations.” American Economist 41: 43–52.
Kanter, Rosabeth. 1977. “Some Eects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex
Ratios and Responses to TokenWomen.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (5):
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 1999. “A Study on the Status of
Women Faculty in Science at MIT.”
(accessed August 10, 2008).
Update of 1999 Study.” (accessed
September 1, 2008).
Monroe, Kristen, Saba Ozyurt, TedWrigley, and Amy Alexander. 2008. “Gender
Equality in Academia: Bad News from the Trenches and Some Possible Policy
Solutions.” Perspectives on Politics 6: 215–34.
Moore, Kathryn. 1987. “Women’s Access and Opportunity in Higher Education:
Toward the Twenty-First Century.” Comparative Education 23: 23–34.
Myers, Samuel, and Caroline Turner. 2004. “The Eects of Ph.D. Supply on Mi-
nority Faculty Representation.” American Economic Review 94: 296–301.
National Science Foundation. 2008. “Science and Engineering Indicators 2008.” (accessed May 19, 2009).
Powell, Gary, and D. Anthony Butterfield. 1997. “Eect of Race on Promotions to
Top Management in a Federal Department.” Academy of Management Journal
40: 112–28.
Roth, Silke. 2004. “Opportunities and Obstacles—Screening the EU Enlargement
Process from a Gender Perspective.” Loyola University Chicago International Law
Review 2 (1): 117–27.
Smeby, Jens-Christian. 2000. “Same Gender Relationships in Graduate Super-
vision.” Higher Education 40: 53–67.
Turner, Caroline Sotello Viernes. 2002. “Women of Color in Academe: Living with
Multiple Marginality.” Journal of Higher Education 73: 74–93.
University of California, Irvine, Department of Academic Personnel. 2009. “Aca-
demic Salary Scales.” (accessed Octo-
ber 10, 2009).
Wenneras, Christine, and AgnesWold. 1997. “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-
Review.” Nature 387: 341–43.
The Profession: Gender Equality in the Academy
308 PS • April 2010
... The lack of female representation as role models and mentors has been identified as a crucial barrier to promoting in surgical specialities and academic internal medicine [3,4]. Unfortunately, mostly female discrimination puts women's careers at a disadvantage and not the lack of appropriately skilled women [5]. Female representation at conferences is an essential facet of gender equity [2]. ...
... This fact raises the question of the reason for these discrepancies. Frequently the pipeline problem is mentioned as causality [5]. The pipeline is an advanced explanation that suggests that gender inequality will decline once there are sufficient numbers of qualified numbers of women [5]. ...
... Frequently the pipeline problem is mentioned as causality [5]. The pipeline is an advanced explanation that suggests that gender inequality will decline once there are sufficient numbers of qualified numbers of women [5]. However, this explanation has been often identified as a persistent way of discrimination since various data have demonstrated that inequity often persists even if the number of women has increased [5]. ...
Full-text available
Purpose Women are underrepresented at scientific conferences, decreasing the visibility of female role models, which are vital for aspiring young female scientists. This investigation aimed to evaluate female representation at the German Society of Urology's (GSoU) annual meeting. Methods The programs of the GSoU meeting of 2011, 2018, 2019 and the virtual conference in 2020 were retrospectively quantified by gender and categorized by chair or speaker, type, and topic of the session. Descriptive analysis was applied. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify gender inequity and variables influencing gender distribution. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 2.504 chairs and speakers were invited to the GSoU meeting in 2018 and 2019. Female speakers or chairs were represented in 17.8%, indicating a gender gap of 64.7%. There were significant differences between session type, topic, and gender distribution for chairs and speakers. The topic surgical techniques were independent variables for both, underrepresented female chairs and speakers, respectively (p < 0.001). Vocational policy and plenary session were not represented by any female chair in 2011, 2018, and 2019. In comparison, the gender gap in 2011 was 74.2%, indicating a gap reduction of 1.2% per year. In a selected virtual program in 2020, the gender gap increased to 70.4%. Conclusion There is still a significant discrepancy between gender representation at the GSoU annual meetings, and gender equity is currently not expected before 50 years. Future efforts should address the implementation of established guidelines for achieving gender equity at urological conferences.
... There is a long and persistent culture of negative bias against women in academia. There are fewer women working in academia than one would expect given relatively comparable numbers of women and men graduate students (Gruber et al., 2021;Monroe & Chiu, 2010), especially in higher academic ranks (Hussar et al., 2020), and women in academia have lower salaries compared to their men counterparts (Curtis & Thornton, 2014;Hopkins, 1999;Monroe et al., 2008). Women's novel research ideas are discounted more than men's novel contributions (Hofstra et al., 2020), women faculty are less likely than men to be invited to give a colloquium talk at a top 50 college or university (Nittrouer et al., 2018), and men continue to win a higher proportion of awards for their scholarly research than would be expected based on their representation in nomination pools (Lincoln et al., 2012). ...
... Persistent gender inequalities exist in academia, including a pervasive undervaluation of women's research (Budden et al., 2008;Gruber et al., 2021;Hofstra et al., 2020;Monroe & Chiu, 2010). The field of communication is no exception. ...
Full-text available
In disciplines outside of communication, papers with women as first and last (i.e. senior) authors attract fewer citations than papers with men in those positions. Using data from 14 communication journals from 1995 to 2018, we find that reference lists include more papers with men as first and last author, and fewer papers with women as first and last author, than would be expected if gender were unrelated to referencing. This imbalance is driven largely by the citation practices of men and is slowly decreasing over time. The structure of men’s co-authorship networks partly accounts for the observed over-citation of men by other men. We discuss ways researchers might approach gendered citations in their work.
... Among the most extensively documented areas of inequality is the percentage of women dropping out of academic careers, a phenomenon dubbed the 'leaky pipeline' (Monroe and Chiu, 2010;Rivera, 2017;Winslow and Davis, 2016). Recently, more attention has been paid to the intersectional character of exclusion (Ahmed, 2012(Ahmed, , 2017Collins, 2015) and specifically the experience of Black and minority ethnic (BME) women in the academia (Rollock, 2019;Williams et al., 2015). ...
... Women disproportionately drop out of academia, in all disciplines and across career stages, regardless of income, parental or marital status (Weishaar, 2017;Monroe and Chiu, 2010;Winslow and Davis, 2016;Benard and Correll, 2010;Correll et al., 2007). B(A)ME and other 'minority' staff face additional challenges related to implicit (or explicit) racial prejudice, bullying and harassment (Arday, 2018(Arday, , 2021Rollock, 2019). ...
Full-text available
This article introduces the concept of epistemic positioning to theorize the relationship between identity-based epistemic judgements and the reproduction of social inequalities, including those of gender and ethnicity/race, in the academia. Acts of epistemic positioning entail the evaluation of knowledge claims based on the speaker’s stated or inferred identity. These judgements serve to limit the scope of the knowledge claim, making it more likely speakers will be denied recognition or credit. The four types of epistemic positioning – bounding (reducing a knowledge claim to elements of personal identity), domaining (reducing a knowledge claim to discipline or field associated with identity), non-attribution (using the claim without recognizing the author) and appropriation (presenting the claim as one’s own) – are mutually reinforcing. Given the growing importance of visibility and recognition in the context of increasing competition and insecurity in academic employment, these practices play a role in the ability of underrepresented groups to remain in the academic profession.
... Studies across the world have highlighted the prevalence of gender gap, and underrepresentation of women and other minorities across all branches of STEM, specifically in leadership positions, including positions in scientific societies (e.g., Hult et al., 2005;Monroe et al., 2010;Potvin et al., 2018;Rushworth et al., 2021). This gender gap is more pronounced in South Asia where women represent only 18.5% of all researchers, with India and Nepal being at the lower end across Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, having less than 14% of women researchers (UNESCO Women in Science Fact Sheet, 2019). ...
Herpetology in India took off during the British colonial rule with the documentation of herpetofauna. Several studies have outlined the early history of Indian herpetology; however, few have traced the growth of this field since India's independence. We analyse trends in Indian herpetology focusing on taxa, subfields, and authorship over the last 70 years. Of the 1177 published articles we analysed, 64.9% studied reptiles, 26.5% studied amphibians and 8.6% were general herpetofaunal studies. Frogs, lizards, and snakes being the most diverse herpetofauna groups, each accounted for 20-21% of the published articles and significantly outnumber publications on caecilians (2.3%), salamanders (0.4%), chelonians (12.6%), and crocodiles (4.4%). We found a significantly greater number of publications on Diversity & Distribution (34.2%), Taxonomy & Systematics (21.6%) and Ecology (19.4%) compared to other subfields, and detected a decline in Development, Physiology & Cytology and Evolutionary biology studies over the last four decades (1980-2019). The gender ratio among co-authors was dominated by men with only 29.7% of publications containing women authors. The overall proportion of women authors has not changed significantly over decades, but our analyses detected a significant decrease in women first authors and the proportion of women authors when the corresponding authors were men. Women authors were substantially lower in the subfield of Taxonomy & Systematics, and women published significantly more on amphibians compared to reptiles. Overall, we highlight the growth of herpetology in India from two key viewpoints, scientific pursuits, and gender parity among herpetologists.
... There is existing research on general pay differences between men and women in various contexts, such as the police (Luo & Schleifer, 2020) and academia (Monroe & Chiu, 2010). There is also research on explanations for the gender pay gap and how to abolish it (Saari, 2013). ...
... Existing scholarship indicates that women take on the bulk of teaching, service, and administrative roles (Kjeldal et al., 2005) and, as a result, are left with very little time for research. The latter is a key marker of academic distinction and advancement that has arguably been hyper-inflated through what Monroe and Chiu (2015) define as a process of "gender devaluation. " This phenomenon witnesses the devaluation of certain forms of academic labor when that labor is adopted, in the main, by women: "Work or positions once deemed powerful and high status become devalued as women take on these roles. ...
Based on a collection of auto‐ethnographic narratives that reflect our experiences as academic mothers at an Australian university, this paper seeks to illustrate the impact of COVID‐19 on our career cycles in order to explore alternative feminist models of progression and practice in Higher Education. Collectively, we span multiple disciplines, parenting profiles, and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Our narratives (initiated in 2019) explicate four focal points in our careers as a foundation for analyzing self‐definitions of professional identity: pre‐ and post‐maternity career break; and pre‐ and post‐COVID‐19 career. We have modeled this research on a collective feminist research practice that is generative and empowering in terms of self‐reflective models of collaborative research. Considering this practice and these narratives, we argue for a de‐centering of masculinized career cycle patterns and progression pathways both now and beyond COVID‐19. This represents both a challenge to neo‐liberal norms of academic productivity, as well as a call to radically enhance institutional gender equality policies and practice.
... Proponents of gender equality in higher education contend that inequalities in higher educational institutions are structural and require a closer look within institutions (Monroe & Chiu, 2010;LaCosse, Sekaquaptewa, & Bennett, 2016). Many scholars have used different approaches to explain the issue of gender disparity in STEM programmes but none has emphasized gender mainstreaming in the admission of students into STEM programmes in tertiary institutions. ...
Full-text available
The importance of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics disciplines and professions to national development makes majority of countries worldwide to consider STEM education a top priority for both males and females' learners. However, gender differences in enrolment in STEM careers show a wide gap and disparity with females being underrepresented. This study, therefore, aims to empirically evaluate how gender mainstreaming in the admission policy and processes of higher educational institutions could be instituted as a policy measure towards bridging the gender gap in STEM disciplines in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions. In carrying out the study, two research hypotheses were formulated. The population of the study comprised educators in STEM disciplines of higher institutions in Ogun State, Nigeria. Multi-stage and proportionate sampling techniques were employed to select 144 STEM educators from three selected tertiary institutions (Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye; Federal College of Education Osiele, Abeokuta and The Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro). The study employed Probit Regression (and Average Marginal Effects) to analyze the data obtained through well-structured questionnaire administered among the participants (STEM educators). The findings revealed that an increase in efforts to adjust entry cutoff marks and quota requirements in favour of female students in tertiary institutions are more likely to reduce or close the gender gap in STEM disciplines by 1% and 4%, respectively. The study affirms that adjusting entry cutoff mark and quota reservation system in favour of female students guarantees greater participation of female students in STEM disciplines in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions.
Has the pandemic exacerbated gender inequality in academia? We provide real- time evidence by analyzing 1.8 million tweets from approximately 3,000 political scientists, leveraging their use of social media for career advancement. Using automated text analysis and difference-in-differences estimation, we find that although faculty members of both genders were affected by the pandemic, the shift to remote work caused women to tweet less often than their male colleagues about professional accomplishments. We argue that these effects are driven by the increased familial obligations placed on women, as demonstrated by the increase in family-related tweets and the more pronounced effects among junior academics. Our evidence demonstrating the gendered shift in professional visibility during the pandemic provides the opportunity for proactive efforts to address disparities that otherwise may take years to manifest.
Full-text available
Objectives Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. Design Cross-sectional review. Data sources Medline database. Eligibility criteria Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. Data extraction Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). Results We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. Conclusions Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women’s authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it.
Full-text available
Throughout the world, women leave their academic careers to a far greater extent than their male colleagues. (1) In Sweden, for example, women are awarded 44 per cent of biomedical PhDs but hold a mere 25 per cent of the postdoctoral positions and only 7 per cent of professorial positions. It used to be thought that once there were enough entry-level female scientists, the male domination of the upper echelons of academic research would automatically diminish. But this has not happened in the biomedical field, where disproportionate numbers of men still hold higher academic positions, despite the significant numbers of women who have entered this research field since the 1970s.
Like any other social or political process, the EU enlargement is gendered. This article first describes gender mainstreaming as an instrument to achieve gender equity, then discusses how the EU Enlargement process both shapes and is shaped by gender relations and reproduces, challenges and modifies gender differences in both the private and public spheres.
Applicant race did not directly affect promotion decisions for top management positions in a cabinet-level U.S. government department with standardized promotion practices that include a panel review process. However, race indirectly affected promotion decisions through key job-relevant variables, to the disadvantage of applicants of color.
Comprehending and overcoming the resistance to equal employment opportunity outcomes requires not only having sufficient documentation and having "enough" women in the pipeline (both of which exist), but also an understanding of the interactions and "lived experiences" among men and women that perpetuates this resistance in organizations. This article explores these dynamics and relevant themes through conversations with men and women working in public organizations about how gender affects their workplace. In it, a communication model is proposed that is useful for diagnostics and intervention in organizations desiring to improve workplace relations and create a more equal workforce.
Throughout Europe, North America, and some other countries of the world the years since 1960 have brought substantial increases in the numbers and percentages of women students in higher education. In some countries, women's participation had been important for a number of decades prior to 1960. In France, Finland, Sweden, and the United States, for example, women students made up rather large portions of their respective student bodies, subject to fluctuations during the world wars. In other countries, however, the increases are more recent and perhaps more remarkable for that. Indeed, in many countries it can be said that were it not for the increases in female participation, general enrolment growth might have decreased or stagnated.
When Linda Babcock asked why so many male graduate students were teaching their own courses and most female students were assigned as assistants, her dean said: "More men ask. The women just don't ask." It turns out that whether they want higher salaries or more help at home, women often find it hard to ask. Sometimes they don't know that change is possible--they don't know that they can ask. Sometimes they fear that asking may damage a relationship. And sometimes they don't ask because they've learned that society can react badly to women asserting their own needs and desires. By looking at the barriers holding women back and the social forces constraining them, Women Don't Ask shows women how to reframe their interactions and more accurately evaluate their opportunities. It teaches them how to ask for what they want in ways that feel comfortable and possible, taking into account the impact of asking on their relationships. And it teaches all of us how to recognize the ways in which our institutions, child-rearing practices, and unspoken assumptions perpetuate inequalities--inequalities that are not only fundamentally unfair but also inefficient and economically unsound. © 2003 by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever. All Rights Reserved.
Productive scientists tend to hold jobs at prestigious university departments, but it is unclear whether this is because good departments hire the best scientists or because good departments encourage and facilitate research productivity. To resolve this issue, we studied the antecedents and consequences of 179 job changes by chemists, biologists, physicists, and mathematicians. Those who were upwardly mobile showed substantial increases in their rate of publication and in the rate of citation to those publications, while those who were downwardly mobile showed substantial decreases in productivity. Earlier analyses of these job changes found only a small effect of prior productivity on destination prestige. These results suggest that the effect of department affiliation on productivity is more important than the effect of productivity on departmental affiliation.
Proportions, that is, relative numbers of socially and culturally different people in a group, are seen as critical in shaping interaction dinamics, and four group types are identified in the basis of varying proportional compositions. "Skewed" groups contain a large preponderance of one type (the numerical "dominants") over another (the rare "tokens"). A framework is developed for conceptualizing the processes that occur between dominants and tokens. Three perceptual phenomena are associated with tokens: visibility (tokens capture a disproportionate awareness share), polarization (differences between tokens and dominants are exaggerated), and assimilation (tokens' attributes are distorted to fit preexisting generalizations about their social type). Visibility generates performance pressures; polarization leads dominants to heighten their group boundaries; and assimilation leads to the tokens' role entrapment. Illustrations are drawn from a field study in a large industrial corporation. Concepts are exten...