TY - JOUR
T1 - More than a pipeline problem
T2 - Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines
AU - Kulis, Stephen
AU - Sicotte, Diane
AU - Collins, Shawn
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant SES-8922477) and an Arizona State University Faculty Grant-in-Aid. We are grateful to Karen Miller-Loessi for comments on an earlier draft; to Donna Fossum, Gwendolyn Lewis, Carolyn Shettle, and Murray Webster for assistance in gaining access to data from the Survey of Doctoral Recipients; to Wei-jie Chen, Yinong Chong, Ione DeOllos, Heather Shaw and Teresa Stensrud for their capa-
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - Employing a nationally representative sample of science faculty in U.S. colleges, we investigate 3 explanations for persisting differences in women's faculty representation across science fields even after adjusting for women's variable representation among doctoral recipients. First, we examine labor market factors: (a) differential growth rates and "critical mass" in the supply of women doctoral recipients, (b) growth or contraction in academic and nonacademic job opportunities, and (c) presence of foreign-born scholars. Second, we control for institutional explanations such as differential rates of faculty unionization and less receptivity to women at prestigious or research-oriented universities and fields that are "applied," "soft," or "nonlife" sciences. Third, gender role explanations are addressed by controlling for gender differences in work experience, work interruptions, and the prestige of doctoral credentials. After finding that none of these explanations account fully for distinctive patterns among science fields in the faculty gender composition, we discuss how they may reflect differences in academic "cultures".
AB - Employing a nationally representative sample of science faculty in U.S. colleges, we investigate 3 explanations for persisting differences in women's faculty representation across science fields even after adjusting for women's variable representation among doctoral recipients. First, we examine labor market factors: (a) differential growth rates and "critical mass" in the supply of women doctoral recipients, (b) growth or contraction in academic and nonacademic job opportunities, and (c) presence of foreign-born scholars. Second, we control for institutional explanations such as differential rates of faculty unionization and less receptivity to women at prestigious or research-oriented universities and fields that are "applied," "soft," or "nonlife" sciences. Third, gender role explanations are addressed by controlling for gender differences in work experience, work interruptions, and the prestige of doctoral credentials. After finding that none of these explanations account fully for distinctive patterns among science fields in the faculty gender composition, we discuss how they may reflect differences in academic "cultures".
KW - Academic cultures
KW - Doctoral labor supply
KW - Faculty women
KW - Gender inequity
KW - Women scientists
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0141739657&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0141739657&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1023/A:1020988531713
DO - 10.1023/A:1020988531713
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:0141739657
SN - 0361-0365
VL - 43
SP - 657
EP - 691
JO - Research in Higher Education
JF - Research in Higher Education
IS - 6
ER -