- Email: [email protected]
The gender and race-ethnicity of faculty in top social science research departments
The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
The gender and race-ethnicity of faculty in top social science research departments Ann M. Beutel a,∗ , Donna J. Nelson b b
a Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Abstract This paper provides a recent profile of the gender and race-ethnicity of faculty in top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. Most faculty are male, although there appear to be critical masses of women in political science and sociology. Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented among faculty relative to their shares of the population. Within each racial-ethnic group examined, there are more male than female faculty members, with a smaller gender gap for Blacks than for other racial-ethnic groups. In general, the higher the rank, the greater the proportion of males than females, especially for Whites and Asians. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Recent decades have seen increases in the participation of women and racial-ethnic minorities in postsecondary education, including enrollment, completion of degrees, and representation among faculty (Bae, Geddes, Sable, & Snyder, 2000; Harvey, 2002; Hoffer et al., 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Representation of women and racial-ethnic minorities among postsecondary faculty is important because when few women or racial-ethnic minorities are present, tokenism may occur, whereby these individuals are treated as representatives or symbols of their entire group, and not as individuals (Kanter, 1977). Tokenism can be prevented when a given minority group, defined by, for example, gender or race-ethnicity, has a “critical mass” of at least 15% within the larger group (Kanter, 1977). In addition, obtaining critical masses might enable women and racial-ethnic minorities to influence aspects of academia ranging from informal interactions to policy formation and tenure decisions (Sonnert & Holton, 1995). (However, obtaining a critical mass should not be viewed as a panacea; see Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, Neuschatz, Uzzi, & Alonzo, 1994.) ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.M. Beutel), [email protected] (D.J. Nelson).
0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.12.011
112
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
This paper provides a recent profile of the gender and race-ethnicity of faculty in top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. These fields are of particular interest because the representation of women and non-White racial-ethnic groups (except for Asians) has been greater in the social and behavioral sciences than in other science and engineering disciplines (e.g., Long, 2001; National Science Foundation, 2000). We consider not only gender differences and racial-ethnic differences among faculty but also gender differences within racial-ethnic groups. This contrasts with most other research on faculty composition, which has focused on either gender or race-ethnicity but has not considered the two simultaneously. We begin by briefly reviewing previous findings on gender and racial-ethnic differences in doctoral production, tenure status, rank, and type of academic institution where employed. Next, we describe the data that were collected for this study. We then present our findings and discuss their implications for the participation of women and racial-ethnic minorities in academia and for future research.
1. An overview of women and racial-ethnic minorities in academia Clearly, an important factor in determining the gender and racial-ethnic make-up of faculty is the gender and racial-ethnic make-up of doctoral recipients.1 The percentage of doctorates received by women and racial-ethnic minorities has increased over time: among U.S. citizens and permanent residents, women were granted 24.8% of all doctorates in 1976 and 48.9% of all doctorates in 2000. Among U.S. citizens and permanent residents who identified their raceethnicity, individuals who were not White non-Hispanic were granted 9.2% of all doctorates in 1976 and 18.8% of all doctorates in 2000 (National Science Foundation, 2003c; Survey of Earned Doctorates data accessed through the WebCAPSAR system). Generally speaking, as more women and racial-ethnic minorities have received doctorates, their representation among postsecondary faculty has increased (e.g., Long, 2001; National Science Board, 2002). While the representation of women and racial-ethnic minorities varies by field (e.g., Astin, Antonio, Cress, & Astin, 1997; Long, 2001), women, Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians generally have been underrepresented among faculty in higher education institutions relative to their representation in the population (e.g., Nettles, Perna, & Bradburn, 2000).2 Within racial-ethnic groups, males have a greater share of faculty positions than females, although this difference is smaller for African Americans than for other racial-ethnic groups (Astin et al., 1997; Nettles et al., 2000). Experiences as faculty tend to differ by gender and race-ethnicity. Women have been more likely than men, and Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians have been more likely than Whites and Asians, to be employed in “off-track” positions that do not lead to tenure (Astin et al., 1997; Long, 2001; Nettles et al., 2000). Of those “on-track,” women are less likely to be tenured and less likely to be full professors than males (Long, 2001; Nettles et al., 2000). Black non-Hispanics, Hispanics, and American Indians are less likely than White non-Hispanics to be tenured, and less likely than White non-Hispanics and Asians to be full professors (Nettles et al., 2000). These differences are in part because many women have received doctorates and entered academia more recently than men, as have many racial-ethnic minorities relative to Whites (Long, 2001; National Science Board, 2002). Yet, studies of science and engineering
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
113
disciplines that have controlled for differences in career age and other factors find that women and Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be tenure track, to have tenure, or to be full professors (Long, 2001; National Science Foundation, 2000). However, Long (2001) reports that the gender gap in tenure status and rank has narrowed over time. The type of postsecondary institution an individual is affiliated with also has been shown to vary by gender and race-ethnicity. Across disciplines, women have been less represented than men at research universities (Long, 2001; National Science Foundation, 2000; Nettles et al., 2000). Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians are less likely to be employed at research universities than Whites and Asians (e.g., National Science Foundation, 2000). Representation at research universities is critical because these institutions tend to be the most prestigious and influential within a discipline.
2. Gender, race-ethnicity, and faculty in the social sciences Our research examines the gender and racial-ethnic composition and rank of tenured and tenure-track faculty in top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. To set the stage for our study, we first review trends over time in the receipt of Ph.D.s in these three fields. Table 1 shows the percentage of economics, political science, and sociology doctorates earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents for two time periods, 1976–1980 and 1996–2000, broken down separately by gender and by race-ethnicity. Looking first at the results by gender, one sees that the percentage of doctorates earned by women in economics and political science increased over time, while the percentage of doctorates earned by women in sociology increased such that, by 1996–2000, women’s share of doctorates was greater than men’s share. The relevance of sociology’s subject matter to women’s lives has been cited as a key reason for the large increase in sociology Ph.D.s among them (Roos & Jones, 1993). The results by race-ethnicity show that the share of doctorates earned by Whites declined over time in all three disciplines, although the decline in political science is slight. Overall, the percentage of doctorates earned by racial-ethnic minorities increased in all three disciplines. By 1996–2000, Asians were overrepresented among doctoral recipients relative to their proportion of the population, but other minority racial-ethnic groups tended to be underrepresented. (In 1998, the midpoint of the 1996–2000 interval, the U.S. population was 72% non-Hispanic White, 12% non-Hispanic Black, 4% Asian and Pacific Islander, 1% American Indian and Alaska Native, and 11% Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).) To understand gender differences within racial-ethnic groups, Table 2 shows the percentage of economics, political science, and sociology doctorates earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents during 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 for groups defined by both race-ethnicity and gender. During the earlier time period, one sees that for each racial-ethnic group, more doctorates in economics, political science, and sociology were earned by men than women. Women’s proportion of doctorates relative to men’s increased between 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 for all racial-ethnic groups. One notes, however, the small number and percentage of doctorates in economics earned between 1996 and 2000 by Black, Hispanic, and Native American females, along with Native American males.
114
By gender
By race-ethnicity
Male
Female
Total
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
1976–1980 Economics Political scienced Sociology
88.3 (3,058) 81.0 (2,814) 63.7 (1,867)
11.7 (404) 19.0 (662) 36.3 (1,065)
100.0 (3,462) 100.0 (3,476) 100.0 (2,932)
84.9 (2,940) 83.7 (2,908) 84.6 (2,480)
2.1 (72) 5.1 (179) 4.9 (145)
1.4 (48) 2.0 (70) 2.2 (65)
1996–2000 Economics Political scienced,e Sociology
71.5 (2,017) 63.2 (2,483) 40.3 (927)
28.5 (805) 36.8 (1,447) 59.7 (1,373)
100.0 (2,822) 100.0 (3,930) 100.0 (2,300)
75.2 (2,123) 80.3 (3,157) 76.0 (1,747)
4.1 (117) 6.9 (271) 9.1 (209)
4.0 (114) 3.6 (142) 4.3 (99)
Asiana
American Indianb
Unknown
Totalc
4.9 (170) 2.4 (83) 2.6 (77)
0.2 (7) 0.2 (7) 0.2 (7)
6.5 (225) 6.6 (229) 5.4 (158)
100.0 (3,462) 100.0 (3,476) 99.9 (2,932)
13.8 (390) 5.5 (217) 6.9 (158)
0.1 (4) 0.6 (22) 1.0 (24)
2.6 (74) 3.1 (121) 2.7 (63)
99.8 (2,822) 100.0 (3,930) 100.0 (2,300)
Source: Data come from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, an annual census of new doctorate recipients, and were tabulated by the authors using the National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System (available at: http://caspar.nsf.gov/webcaspar). a b c d e
Asian includes Pacific Islanders. American Indian includes Alaska Natives. Total percentages might not equal 100 due to rounding. Includes doctorates in public administration. Excludes one case of unknown gender and unknown race-ethnicity.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 1 Percentage of social science doctoral recipients by gender and by race-ethnicity for U.S. citizens and permanent residents, 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 (number of cases in parentheses)
1976–1980 Economics Political scienced Sociology 1996–2000 Economics Political scienced,e Sociology
Asiana
American Indianb
Unknown
Female
Male
Male
Female
4.0 (139) 2.3 (79)
0.9 (31) 0.1 (4)
0.2 (7) – (0) 0.2 (6) 0.0 (1)
6.1 (210) 5.4 (187)
0.4 (15) 1.2 (42)
99.9 (3,462) 100.0 (3,476)
0.4 (13)
1.9 (55)
0.8 (22)
0.1 (4)
0.1 (3)
3.5 (103)
1.9 (55)
100.1 (2,932)
3.1 (88) 2.1 (83)
0.9 (26) 1.5 (59)
9.1 (257) 3.5 (137)
4.7 (133) 2.0 (80)
0.1 (3) 0.3 (12)
0.0 (1) 0.3 (10)
2.1 (59) 2.1 (84)
0.5 (15) 0.9 (37)
99.8 (2,822) 99.9 (3,930)
2.0 (47)
2.3 (52)
2.7 (61)
4.2 (97)
0.4 (10)
0.6 (14)
1.2 (27)
1.6 (36)
100.0 (2,300)
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
75.0 (2,595) 67.4 (2,342)
10.0 (345) 16.3 (566)
1.8 (64) 3.9 (137)
0.2 (8) 1.2 (42)
1.2 (43) 1.8 (63)
0.1 (5) 0.2 (7)
53.2 (1,560)
31.4 (920)
3.2 (93)
1.8 (52)
1.8 (52)
53.8 (1,519) 51.3 (2,016)
21.4 (604) 29.0 (1,141)
3.2 (91) 3.8 (151)
0.9 (26) 3.1 (120)
29.8 (686)
46.1 (1,061)
4.2 (96)
4.9 (113)
Female
Totalc
Source: Data come from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, an annual census of new doctorate recipients, and were tabulated by the authors using the National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System (available at: http://caspar.nsf.gov/webcaspar). a Asian includes Pacific Islanders. b American Indian includes Alaska Natives. c Total percentages might not equal 100 due to rounding. d Includes doctorates in public administration. e Excludes one case of unknown gender and unknown race-ethnicity.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 2 Percentage of social science doctoral recipients for racial-ethnic and gender groups, U.S. citizens and permanent residents, 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 (number of cases in parentheses)
115
116
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
A somewhat different picture has emerged over time in sociology. Between 1976–1980 and 1996–2000, the percentage of doctorates in sociology earned by White men declined dramatically while the percentage earned by men from other racial-ethnic groups increased somewhat. At the same time, the share of doctorates received by women in all racial-ethnic groups increased. As a result, within each racial-ethnic group, women earned a larger share of doctorates in sociology than men by 1996–2000.
3. Study description To investigate the gender and race-ethnicity of faculty, we use data that were collected from top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. Top research departments are important to examine because they are highly influential, producing work that shapes the thinking of an entire discipline. Top research departments also tend to be top-ranked departments within a discipline. As a result, they train a disproportionate share of graduate students and place a disproportionate share of their graduates in faculty positions across the country. To study top research departments, we selected all the departments in each discipline that ranked in the top 50 for research and development expenditures according to the most recent National Science Foundation annual report on research and development expenditures available at the time our data were collected (National Science Foundation, 2001). Virtually all of the departments in our study are located in universities classified in either the Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive category (89.4%) or the Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive category (9.4%) of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (McCormick, 2001).3 For each of the top 50 departments in research and development expenditures within economics, political science, and sociology, department chairs were contacted and asked to report on the gender and race-ethnicity (Asian, Black, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Native American) of tenured and tenure-track faculty at the assistant, associate, and full professor levels for fiscal year 2002. In a limited number of instances, data were collected instead from other sources, such as department websites and published directories. Because the number of faculty reported to be Native American was small (one case for economics, two cases for political science, and two cases for sociology), Native Americans were excluded from the analysis. We analyze data for 1,338 cases in economics, 1,318 cases in political science, and 1,066 cases in sociology. It should be noted that these cases are unlikely to be representative of all doctoral recipients within each social science discipline. For example, top research universities nowadays tend to employ the most accomplished and promising doctoral recipients (National Science Foundation, 2003b). We are interested, however, in the extent to which the doctoral labor supply in each discipline corresponds with patterns of employment in top research departments.
4. Results The gender gap in faculty representation is greatest in economics, where 11.5% of faculty are female, and smallest in sociology, where 35.8% of faculty are female. Political science
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
117
Fig. 1. Racial-ethnic composition of faculty in top social science research departments.
is in between, with 23.5% of faculty being female. In sociology and political science then, it appears that there are critical masses of females in top research departments. Two-tailed t tests (results not shown) indicate the means (proportions) of males and females who are faculty in each discipline are statistically different (p ≤ .001). The racial-ethnic composition of faculty in economics, political science, and sociology are shown in Fig. 1. For each discipline, the percentages for the racial-ethnic groups shown in the figure sum to 100%. The percentage of White faculty is approximately the same across the three disciplines. The greatest representation of a non-White group is in economics, where Asians comprise almost 11% of the faculty. They constitute a smaller percentage of faculty in political science and sociology, about 5% in each discipline. The percentage of Black faculty ranges from 6.6% in sociology to 1.5% in economics. There is less variation in the percentage of Hispanics, ranging from 3.3% in sociology to 1.7% in political science. Thus, Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented relative to their proportions in the population but Asians are not. Two-tailed t tests for the means (proportions) of faculty for pairs of racial-ethnic groups (e.g., Blacks and Whites, Hispanics and Asians) in each social science field (results not shown) are significantly different at p ≤ .05 in all but a few instances.4 The percentage distributions of male and female faculty within each racial-ethnic group for each field are shown in Table 3. In every instance, there is a greater share of males than females within each racial-ethnic group. For Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, the gender difference in faculty representation is smallest in sociology and largest in economics. Among Asians, the gender difference in faculty representation is smallest in political science and largest in economics. In each of the disciplines, the gender gap is smaller among Blacks than the other
118
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 3 Percentage distributions of male and female faculty by race-ethnicity for top social science research departments (number of cases in parentheses) Economics White Male Female Total
Black
Hispanic
Asian
89.2 (1,054) 10.8 (128)
76.2 (16) 23.8 (5)
81.6 (31) 18.4 (7)
86.4 (127) 13.6 (20)
100.0 (1,182)
100.0 (21)
100.0 (38)
100.0 (147)
White
Blacka
Hispanic
Asian
F 2.02
Political science
Male Female Total
78.0 (910) 22.0 (256)
60.6 (40) 39.4 (26)
72.7 (16) 27.3 (6)
65.6 (42) 34.4 (22)
100.0 (1,166)
100.0 (66)
100.0 (22)
100.0 (64)
Black
Hispanic
F 5.11**
Sociology White Male Female Total a ∗∗
Asian
64.4 (586) 35.6 (324)
54.3 (38) 45.7 (32)
65.7 (23) 34.3 (12)
72.5 (37) 27.5 (14)
100.0 (910)
100.0 (70)
100.0 (35)
100.0 (51)
F 1.53
Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of Blacks relative to Whites p ≤ .01. p ≤ .01.
racial-ethnic groups, which is consistent with other research finding that women’s share of faculty is higher for Blacks than for other racial-ethnic groups (Astin et al., 1997; Nettles et al., 2000). As in Table 2, one is struck by the small absolute number of Black and Hispanic women in economics. Black women are the least represented group in economics. Hispanic women are the least represented group in both political science and sociology. One-way ANOVAs were performed to assess whether the gender composition of faculty varies by race-ethnicity in each field. The F values from the ANOVAs, which are located in the final column of Table 3, indicate that the gender composition of faculty does not vary significantly across racial-ethnic groups in either economics or sociology but does vary significantly across racial-ethnic groups in political science. Bonferroni pairwise comparison tests, which adjust the observed significance for the fact that multiple comparisons are being performed simultaneously, were used to assess gender differences in faculty composition across racialethnic groups in each discipline. Only the pairwise comparison of the gender composition of Black faculty relative to White faculty in political science is significant. Thus, the reason there is a significant F value for political science is because Blacks in political science have a significantly greater proportion of faculty who are female than do Whites. This provides additional evidence that the gender gap in faculty composition tends to be smaller among Blacks relative to other racial-ethnic groups. Otherwise, the gender composition of faculty is statistically similar across racial-ethnic groups. Table 4 gives the percentage distributions of women and men at each rank in each of the social science disciplines. The results indicate the higher the rank, the greater the percentage of men at the rank. Gender differences in rank are most striking in economics, where over 90%
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
119
Table 4 Percentage distributions of rank by gender for top social science research departments (number of cases in parentheses) Economics
Full Associate Assistant
Male
Femalea,b
Total
F
92.8 (762) 83.7 (210) 81.0 (256)
7.2 (59) 16.3 (41) 19.0 (60)
100.0 (821) 100.0 (251) 100.0 (316)
19.55***
Male
Femalea,b,c
Total
F
86.1 (543) 71.3 (268) 63.3 (197)
13.9 (88) 28.7 (108) 36.7 (114)
100.0 (631) 100.0 (376) 100.0 (311)
35.57***
Male
Femalea,b
Total
F
75.7 (404) 57.3 (157) 47.7 (123)
24.3 (130) 42.7 (117) 52.3 (135)
100.0 (534) 100.0 (274) 100.0 (258)
35.53***
Political science
Full Associate Assistant Sociology
Full Associate Assistant
Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to associate rank p ≤ .001. Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .001. c Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of associate rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .05. ∗∗∗ p ≤ .001. a
b
of the full professors are men. Gender differences within each rank are smallest in sociology, reflecting the greater feminization (i.e., representation of women) that has occurred within that discipline relative to the other disciplines. Nevertheless, results of the ANOVAs reveal statistically significant differences in gender composition across rank for all three disciplines, as indicated by the F values shown in Table 4. For each of the disciplines, Bonferroni pairwise comparison tests of the gender composition of the full rank relative to the associate rank and the full rank relative to the assistant rank indicate that a significantly smaller proportion of women are at the full rank than the associate rank or the assistant rank. In addition, the comparison test of the associate rank relative to the assistant rank is statistically significant for political science, indicating that a smaller proportion of women are at the associate rank than the assistant rank. Table 5 shows the percentage distributions of rank by race-ethnicity and gender for each field. In economics, there is a higher percentage of men than women at each rank for every racial-ethnic group. Among Blacks, there are no women at the associate rank. The F values indicate there are statistically significant differences in gender composition across ranks for Whites and Asians in economics, but not for Blacks and Hispanics, which may be due to their small numbers. The Bonferroni pairwise comparisons of rank indicate a significantly smaller proportion of women are at the full rank than at the associate rank for Whites, and a significantly smaller proportion of women are at the full rank than at the assistant rank for both Whites and Asians. Thus, while there generally are greater shares of men than women at each rank, women’s share of faculty positions across ranks within economics varies significantly for Whites and Asians, with even smaller shares of women at higher ranks than lower ranks.
120
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 5 Percentage distributions of rank by gender and race-ethnicity for top social science research departments (number of cases in parentheses) Male Economics Whitea,b Full Associate Assistant Black Full Associate Assistant
93.3 (697) 81.6 (168) 82.5 (189) 70.0 (7) 100.0 (5) 66.7 (4)
Female
Total
F
6.7 (50) 18.4 (38) 17.5 (40)
100.0 (747) 100.0 (206) 100.0 (229)
18.55***
30.0 (3) – 33.3 (2)
100.0 (10) 100.0 (5) 100.0 (6)
.99
Hispanic Full Associate Assistant
82.4 (14) 83.3 (5) 80.0 (12)
17.6 (3) 16.7 (1) 20.0 (3)
100.0 (17) 100.0 (6) 100.0 (15)
.02
Asianc Full Associate Assistant
93.6 (44) 94.1 (32) 77.3 (51)
6.4 (3) 5.9 (2) 22.7 (15)
100.0 (47) 100.0 (34) 100.0 (66)
4.41*
Political science Whitea,b,d Full Associate Assistant
86.2 (506) 73.4 (235) 65.3 (169)
13.8 (81) 26.6 (85) 34.7 (90)
100.0 (587) 100.0 (320) 100.0 (259)
26.87***
Black Full Associate Assistant
77.3 (17) 46.4 (13) 62.5 (10)
22.7 (5) 53.6 (15) 37.5 (6)
100.0 (22) 100.0 (28) 100.0 (16)
2.55
– 25.0 (2) 50.0 (4)
100.0 (6) 100.0 (8) 100.0 (8)
2.34
87.5 (14) 70.0 (14) 50.0 (14)
12.5 (2) 30.0 (6) 50.0 (14)
100.0 (16) 100.0 (20) 100.0 (28)
3.50*
75.5 (367) 55.7 (123) 47.3 (96)
24.5 (119) 44.3 (98) 52.7 (107)
100.0 (486) 100.0 (221) 100.0 (203)
31.71***
69.6 (16) 47.6 (10) 46.2 (12)
30.4 (7) 52.4 (11) 53.8 (14)
100.0 (23) 100.0 (21) 100.0 (26)
1.62
Hispanic Full Associate Assistant Asianc Full Associate Assistant Sociology Whitea,b Full Associate Assistant Black Full Associate Assistant
100.0 (6) 75.0 (6) 50.0 (4)
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
121
Table 5 (Continued ) Male
Female
Total
F
Hispanic Full Associate Assistant
80.0 (8) 69.2 (9) 50.0 (6)
20.0 (2) 30.8 (4) 50.0 (6)
100.0 (10) 100.0 (13) 100.0 (12)
1.12
Asian Full Associate Assistant
86.7 (13) 78.9 (15) 52.9 (9)
13.3 (2) 21.1 (4) 47.1 (8)
100.0 (15) 100.0 (19) 100.0 (17)
2.71
Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to associate rank p ≤ .001. Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .001. c Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .05. d Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of associate rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .05. ∗ p ≤ .05. ∗∗∗ p ≤ .001. a
b
The percentage distributions for political science suggest less gender inequity in political science than in economics. For example, unlike economics, there are equal proportions of Hispanic women and men and Asian women and men at the assistant rank. Also in contrast to economics, the gender composition for Blacks at the associate rank is relatively equitable. (However, the slightly higher percentage of Black females than males at the associate rank might suggest that Black females are promoted more slowly than Black males from the associate rank to the full rank.) Like economics, the F values in political science for Whites and Asians indicate statistically significant differences in gender composition. For Whites, all pairwise comparison tests show statistically significant differences, that is, a smaller proportion of women at the full rank than the associate and assistant ranks and a smaller proportion of women at the associate rank than the assistant rank. For Asians, a pairwise comparison test shows a significantly smaller share of women at the full rank than at the assistant rank. (All other pairwise comparison tests for Asians are not significant.) The smallest gender differences are found in sociology. The F values from the ANOVAs indicate a significant effect for Whites only in gender composition across ranks. The Bonferroni pairwise comparison tests indicate that the significant variation for Whites results from a significantly smaller share of women at the full rank than at the associate and assistant ranks.
5. Discussion and conclusions Our results show a critical mass of women in sociology and in political science but not in economics. Thus, the situation of women in top research departments of economics may be more difficult than that of women in top research departments of political science or sociology. Women in top research departments of economics may be at greater risk for tokenism and its concomitants, including isolation and marginality (Kanter, 1977). They may fare worse in terms of career advancement, as previous research suggests that a critical mass of women may be
122
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
important in this regard (e.g., Sonnert & Holton, 1995). With respect to race-ethnicity, Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented relative to their shares of the population while Asians are not. These patterns raise concerns about the extent of social equity in science (Pearson & Fechter, 1994) and adherence to the ideal that scientific careers “should be open to talent” (Merton, [1942] 1973, p. 272). Within each racial-ethnic group, there are more male than female faculty members. Overall, the gender gap in faculty representation is smaller for Blacks than for other racial-ethnic groups. However, the absolute numbers of Black women in economics, as well as Hispanic women in economics and political science, are quite low. The situation for these women may be especially difficult. It has been suggested that minority women face “double jeopardy” because they belong to two disadvantaged groups (e.g., Kulis & Miller, 1988). For example, minority women report performing a large amount of committee work, which may be because they can simultaneously fill both the “woman” and “minority” slots on committees (Kulis & Miller, 1988; Turner & Myers, 2000). They report performing committee work that is not highly valued and does not lead to positions of authority and status (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Turner & Myers, 2000). Such work leaves them with less time for research, which is critical for tenure and promotion. Because research expectations are likely to be greater at top research departments than elsewhere, minority women’s heavy committee responsibilities may be particularly detrimental to their careers in top social science research departments. Results by rank generally indicate the higher the rank, the higher the percentage of males at the rank, especially for Whites and Asians. Gender differences at each rank are greatest in economics and smallest in sociology. Although there may be a critical mass of women overall in top research departments of sociology and political science, what may be most important in terms of influencing departments, universities, and disciplines is a critical mass of women at the full rank. There appears to be a critical mass of women at the full rank in sociology only. Our study provides a richer description of faculty representation for groups defined by both gender and race-ethnicity than most previous research. However, there are limitations to the research presented here. Because only a small amount of data about faculty were gathered in our study, we are unable to investigate adequately the possible reasons for the gender and racial-ethnic patterns of faculty representation we find. Thus, we can only speculate as to the reasons for the patterns we report here. Gender and racial-ethnic differences in faculty representation and rank are likely due in part to gender and racial-ethnic differences in receipt of doctorates. While group differences in doctoral supply may be a key factor, group differences with respect to other factors also may contribute. Individual factors, such as prestige of the doctoral credentials, collaborations with mentors, having children, and time spent as faculty in teaching, service work, and other nonresearch activities have been shown to differ by gender or race-ethnicity or both (Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999; Long, 1990; Long & Fox, 1995; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Turner & Thompson, 1993; Xie & Shauman, 2003). Gender or racialethnic differences in the possible effects of these factors on representation and rank may be exacerbated at top social science research departments, given the prestige of these departments and the high expectations for performance, especially in the areas of research and publishing, that these departments are likely to have.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
123
Effects of institutional factors, such as personnel practices, institutional size, and the presence of female and racial-ethnic minority students and administrators on the presence, tenure status, and rank of female and racial-ethnic minority faculty, respectively, have been found (e.g., Kulis, 1998; Kulis, Chong, & Shaw, 1999; Turner & Myers, 2000). The effects that institutional factors might have on the presence of female and racial-ethnic minorities in top social science research departments in particular should be investigated. Finally, the possible existence of either covert or overt discrimination against women and racial-ethnic minorities in top social science research departments should not be ignored. Factors unique to each discipline also may explain the gender and racial-ethnic composition of top research departments within that discipline. Particular attention should be paid to top research departments of economics. Compared to the other fields we examine, economics has the smallest percentage of female and Black faculty and the largest percentage of Asian faculty, but a greater percentage of Hispanics than political science. Disciplinary differences in gender and racial-ethnic composition may reflect to some extent disciplinary differences in the gender and racial-ethnic composition of the doctoral labor supply.5 Table 1 shows that in economics, women and Blacks have been smaller shares of doctoral recipients and Asians have been a larger share of doctoral recipients relative to their shares in the other two fields. However, it is possible that factors other than gender and racial-ethnic differences in doctoral labor supply may be at work. For example, Table 1 shows that Hispanics have held a similar share of economics doctorates as Blacks, but there are almost twice as many Hispanics than Blacks in top research departments of economics. Disciplinary differences in the availability and employment of foreign-born scholars could be another factor responsible for the patterns we find (e.g., the larger percentage of faculty who are Asian in economics compared to political science and sociology).6 Unfortunately, we did not ask about national origin of faculty in our study. Finally, differences in the cultures of academic disciplines (Becher, 1989) may be another factor that is related to disciplinary variations in the gender and racialethnic composition of faculty in top research departments. Future research should consider carefully how specific characteristics of disciplines may vary, and how these variations might influence the gender and racial-ethnic composition of faculty in top social science research departments. Future research should also consider how individual, institutional, disciplinary, and other factors affect the hiring, retention, and promotion of groups defined by both gender and raceethnicity. Admittedly, research that examines groups defined by both gender and race-ethnicity might be difficult to do, given the small number of faculty from certain gender and racial-ethnic groups, such as Black and Hispanic males and females. Indeed, we encountered small numbers from these groups in our own analysis. Qualitative research may serve as a key step in this regard. Finally, studies are needed that consider the implications of the decline in new White male Ph.D.s—especially in sociology, where White males now constitute less than a third of all new Ph.D.s—on faculty composition. Whether these men are being offered more “rewards,” such as faculty positions in prestigious departments, in order to stay in their respective disciplines (Spalter-Roth & Lee, 2000) should be investigated. If this is the case, it may disadvantage women and people of color in obtaining faculty positions within top research departments.
124
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Notes 1. Not all social science Ph.D.s work in academia, although the majority (approximately two-thirds) of them do (National Science Foundation, 2003a). Research thus far has failed to show strong effects of nonacademic employment opportunities on the gender or racial-ethnic composition of faculty in science and engineering (Kulis, Shaw, & Chong, 2000; Kulis, Sicotte, & Collins, 2002). 2. “American Indian” and “Black” are the terms used in government classifications of race. We use the terms interchangeably with “Native American” and “African American,” respectively. 3. One department is located in the Specialized-Other category. It should be noted that these categories differ somewhat from those used in earlier Carnegie Classifications (e.g., the earlier classification system had four categories for doctorate-granting institutions while the new classification system has two). 4. These are the t tests for the means (proportions) of Blacks and Asians in political science, and both Blacks and Asians and Hispanics and Asians in sociology. 5. One explanation for gender and racial-ethnic differences in receipt of economics degrees is that “women and students of color may find the abstract modeling of economics not so much daunting as tangential to their interests and primary ways of knowing” (Bartlett, 1995, p. 364). 6. Research has found that the underrepresentation of females and native-born Blacks and Hispanics among science and engineering faculty persists when national origin of faculty is considered (Kulis, Sicotte, & Collins, 2002; Turner & Myers, 2000).
References Astin, H. S., Antonio, A. L., Cress, C. M., & Astin, A. W. (1997). Race and ethnicity in the American professoriate 1995–96. Los Angeles: Higher Education Institute, UCLA. Bae, Y., Choy, S., Geddes, C., Sable, J., & Snyder, T. (2000). Trends in educational equity for girls and women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Bartlett, R. L. (1995). Attracting “otherwise bright students” to economics 101. American Economic Review, 85, 362–366. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Bristol, PA: Society for Research Into Higher Education and Open University Press. Bellas, M. L., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race, and family effects. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 367–390. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., Uzzi, B., & Alonzo, J. (1994, October 7). The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science, 266, 51–54. Harvey, W. B. (2002). Minorities in higher education 2001–2002: Nineteenth annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education. Hoffer, T. B., Dugoni, B. L., Sanderson, A. R., Sederstrom, S., Welch, V., Guzman-Barron, I., et al. (2002). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2001. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kulis, S. (1998). Organizational variations in women scientists’ representation in academia. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 43–67.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
125
Kulis, S., Chong, Y., & Shaw, H. (1999). Discriminatory organizational contexts and black scientists on postsecondary faculties. Research in Higher Education, 40, 115–148. Kulis, S., & Miller, K. A. (1988). Are minority women sociologists in double jeopardy? The American Sociologist, 19, 323–339. Kulis, S., Shaw, H., & Chong, Y. (2000). External labor markets and the distribution of black scientists and engineers in academia. Journal of Higher Education, 40, 187–222. Kulis, S., Sicotte, D., & Collins, S. (2002). More than a pipeline problem: Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 43, 657– 691. Long, J. S. (1990). The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68, 1297–1315. Long, J. S. (Ed.). (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71. McCormick, A. C. (Ed.). (2000). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education, 2000 edition. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The condition of education 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Science Board. (2002). National science and engineering indicators—2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2001). Academic research and development expenditures: Fiscal year 1999. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2003a). Characteristics of doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States: 2001. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2003b). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers: A literature review. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2003c). WebCASPAR Database System. Accessed May at http://caspar.nsf. gov/webcaspar. Nettles, M. T., Perna, L. W., & Bradburn, E. M. (2000). Salary, promotion, and tenure status of minority and women faculty in U.S. colleges and universities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Pearson, W., & Fechter, A. (Eds.). (1994). Who will do science? Educating the next generation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Roos, P. A., & Jones, K. W. (1993). Shifting gender boundaries: Women’s inroads into academic sociology. Work and Occupations, 20, 395–428. Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1995). Gender differences in science careers: The project access study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Spalter-Roth, R. M., & Lee, S. (2000). Gender in the early stages of the sociological career. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany: State University of New York Press. Turner, C. S. V., & Myers, S. L., Jr. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Turner, C. S. V., & Thompson, J. R. (1993). Socializing women doctoral students: Minority and majority experiences. Review of Higher Education, 16, 355–370. U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
The gender and race-ethnicity of faculty in top social science research departments Ann M. Beutel a,∗ , Donna J. Nelson b b
a Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Abstract This paper provides a recent profile of the gender and race-ethnicity of faculty in top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. Most faculty are male, although there appear to be critical masses of women in political science and sociology. Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented among faculty relative to their shares of the population. Within each racial-ethnic group examined, there are more male than female faculty members, with a smaller gender gap for Blacks than for other racial-ethnic groups. In general, the higher the rank, the greater the proportion of males than females, especially for Whites and Asians. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Recent decades have seen increases in the participation of women and racial-ethnic minorities in postsecondary education, including enrollment, completion of degrees, and representation among faculty (Bae, Geddes, Sable, & Snyder, 2000; Harvey, 2002; Hoffer et al., 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). Representation of women and racial-ethnic minorities among postsecondary faculty is important because when few women or racial-ethnic minorities are present, tokenism may occur, whereby these individuals are treated as representatives or symbols of their entire group, and not as individuals (Kanter, 1977). Tokenism can be prevented when a given minority group, defined by, for example, gender or race-ethnicity, has a “critical mass” of at least 15% within the larger group (Kanter, 1977). In addition, obtaining critical masses might enable women and racial-ethnic minorities to influence aspects of academia ranging from informal interactions to policy formation and tenure decisions (Sonnert & Holton, 1995). (However, obtaining a critical mass should not be viewed as a panacea; see Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, Neuschatz, Uzzi, & Alonzo, 1994.) ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.M. Beutel), [email protected] (D.J. Nelson).
0362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.12.011
112
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
This paper provides a recent profile of the gender and race-ethnicity of faculty in top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. These fields are of particular interest because the representation of women and non-White racial-ethnic groups (except for Asians) has been greater in the social and behavioral sciences than in other science and engineering disciplines (e.g., Long, 2001; National Science Foundation, 2000). We consider not only gender differences and racial-ethnic differences among faculty but also gender differences within racial-ethnic groups. This contrasts with most other research on faculty composition, which has focused on either gender or race-ethnicity but has not considered the two simultaneously. We begin by briefly reviewing previous findings on gender and racial-ethnic differences in doctoral production, tenure status, rank, and type of academic institution where employed. Next, we describe the data that were collected for this study. We then present our findings and discuss their implications for the participation of women and racial-ethnic minorities in academia and for future research.
1. An overview of women and racial-ethnic minorities in academia Clearly, an important factor in determining the gender and racial-ethnic make-up of faculty is the gender and racial-ethnic make-up of doctoral recipients.1 The percentage of doctorates received by women and racial-ethnic minorities has increased over time: among U.S. citizens and permanent residents, women were granted 24.8% of all doctorates in 1976 and 48.9% of all doctorates in 2000. Among U.S. citizens and permanent residents who identified their raceethnicity, individuals who were not White non-Hispanic were granted 9.2% of all doctorates in 1976 and 18.8% of all doctorates in 2000 (National Science Foundation, 2003c; Survey of Earned Doctorates data accessed through the WebCAPSAR system). Generally speaking, as more women and racial-ethnic minorities have received doctorates, their representation among postsecondary faculty has increased (e.g., Long, 2001; National Science Board, 2002). While the representation of women and racial-ethnic minorities varies by field (e.g., Astin, Antonio, Cress, & Astin, 1997; Long, 2001), women, Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians generally have been underrepresented among faculty in higher education institutions relative to their representation in the population (e.g., Nettles, Perna, & Bradburn, 2000).2 Within racial-ethnic groups, males have a greater share of faculty positions than females, although this difference is smaller for African Americans than for other racial-ethnic groups (Astin et al., 1997; Nettles et al., 2000). Experiences as faculty tend to differ by gender and race-ethnicity. Women have been more likely than men, and Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians have been more likely than Whites and Asians, to be employed in “off-track” positions that do not lead to tenure (Astin et al., 1997; Long, 2001; Nettles et al., 2000). Of those “on-track,” women are less likely to be tenured and less likely to be full professors than males (Long, 2001; Nettles et al., 2000). Black non-Hispanics, Hispanics, and American Indians are less likely than White non-Hispanics to be tenured, and less likely than White non-Hispanics and Asians to be full professors (Nettles et al., 2000). These differences are in part because many women have received doctorates and entered academia more recently than men, as have many racial-ethnic minorities relative to Whites (Long, 2001; National Science Board, 2002). Yet, studies of science and engineering
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
113
disciplines that have controlled for differences in career age and other factors find that women and Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to be tenure track, to have tenure, or to be full professors (Long, 2001; National Science Foundation, 2000). However, Long (2001) reports that the gender gap in tenure status and rank has narrowed over time. The type of postsecondary institution an individual is affiliated with also has been shown to vary by gender and race-ethnicity. Across disciplines, women have been less represented than men at research universities (Long, 2001; National Science Foundation, 2000; Nettles et al., 2000). Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians are less likely to be employed at research universities than Whites and Asians (e.g., National Science Foundation, 2000). Representation at research universities is critical because these institutions tend to be the most prestigious and influential within a discipline.
2. Gender, race-ethnicity, and faculty in the social sciences Our research examines the gender and racial-ethnic composition and rank of tenured and tenure-track faculty in top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. To set the stage for our study, we first review trends over time in the receipt of Ph.D.s in these three fields. Table 1 shows the percentage of economics, political science, and sociology doctorates earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents for two time periods, 1976–1980 and 1996–2000, broken down separately by gender and by race-ethnicity. Looking first at the results by gender, one sees that the percentage of doctorates earned by women in economics and political science increased over time, while the percentage of doctorates earned by women in sociology increased such that, by 1996–2000, women’s share of doctorates was greater than men’s share. The relevance of sociology’s subject matter to women’s lives has been cited as a key reason for the large increase in sociology Ph.D.s among them (Roos & Jones, 1993). The results by race-ethnicity show that the share of doctorates earned by Whites declined over time in all three disciplines, although the decline in political science is slight. Overall, the percentage of doctorates earned by racial-ethnic minorities increased in all three disciplines. By 1996–2000, Asians were overrepresented among doctoral recipients relative to their proportion of the population, but other minority racial-ethnic groups tended to be underrepresented. (In 1998, the midpoint of the 1996–2000 interval, the U.S. population was 72% non-Hispanic White, 12% non-Hispanic Black, 4% Asian and Pacific Islander, 1% American Indian and Alaska Native, and 11% Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).) To understand gender differences within racial-ethnic groups, Table 2 shows the percentage of economics, political science, and sociology doctorates earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents during 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 for groups defined by both race-ethnicity and gender. During the earlier time period, one sees that for each racial-ethnic group, more doctorates in economics, political science, and sociology were earned by men than women. Women’s proportion of doctorates relative to men’s increased between 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 for all racial-ethnic groups. One notes, however, the small number and percentage of doctorates in economics earned between 1996 and 2000 by Black, Hispanic, and Native American females, along with Native American males.
114
By gender
By race-ethnicity
Male
Female
Total
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
1976–1980 Economics Political scienced Sociology
88.3 (3,058) 81.0 (2,814) 63.7 (1,867)
11.7 (404) 19.0 (662) 36.3 (1,065)
100.0 (3,462) 100.0 (3,476) 100.0 (2,932)
84.9 (2,940) 83.7 (2,908) 84.6 (2,480)
2.1 (72) 5.1 (179) 4.9 (145)
1.4 (48) 2.0 (70) 2.2 (65)
1996–2000 Economics Political scienced,e Sociology
71.5 (2,017) 63.2 (2,483) 40.3 (927)
28.5 (805) 36.8 (1,447) 59.7 (1,373)
100.0 (2,822) 100.0 (3,930) 100.0 (2,300)
75.2 (2,123) 80.3 (3,157) 76.0 (1,747)
4.1 (117) 6.9 (271) 9.1 (209)
4.0 (114) 3.6 (142) 4.3 (99)
Asiana
American Indianb
Unknown
Totalc
4.9 (170) 2.4 (83) 2.6 (77)
0.2 (7) 0.2 (7) 0.2 (7)
6.5 (225) 6.6 (229) 5.4 (158)
100.0 (3,462) 100.0 (3,476) 99.9 (2,932)
13.8 (390) 5.5 (217) 6.9 (158)
0.1 (4) 0.6 (22) 1.0 (24)
2.6 (74) 3.1 (121) 2.7 (63)
99.8 (2,822) 100.0 (3,930) 100.0 (2,300)
Source: Data come from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, an annual census of new doctorate recipients, and were tabulated by the authors using the National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System (available at: http://caspar.nsf.gov/webcaspar). a b c d e
Asian includes Pacific Islanders. American Indian includes Alaska Natives. Total percentages might not equal 100 due to rounding. Includes doctorates in public administration. Excludes one case of unknown gender and unknown race-ethnicity.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 1 Percentage of social science doctoral recipients by gender and by race-ethnicity for U.S. citizens and permanent residents, 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 (number of cases in parentheses)
1976–1980 Economics Political scienced Sociology 1996–2000 Economics Political scienced,e Sociology
Asiana
American Indianb
Unknown
Female
Male
Male
Female
4.0 (139) 2.3 (79)
0.9 (31) 0.1 (4)
0.2 (7) – (0) 0.2 (6) 0.0 (1)
6.1 (210) 5.4 (187)
0.4 (15) 1.2 (42)
99.9 (3,462) 100.0 (3,476)
0.4 (13)
1.9 (55)
0.8 (22)
0.1 (4)
0.1 (3)
3.5 (103)
1.9 (55)
100.1 (2,932)
3.1 (88) 2.1 (83)
0.9 (26) 1.5 (59)
9.1 (257) 3.5 (137)
4.7 (133) 2.0 (80)
0.1 (3) 0.3 (12)
0.0 (1) 0.3 (10)
2.1 (59) 2.1 (84)
0.5 (15) 0.9 (37)
99.8 (2,822) 99.9 (3,930)
2.0 (47)
2.3 (52)
2.7 (61)
4.2 (97)
0.4 (10)
0.6 (14)
1.2 (27)
1.6 (36)
100.0 (2,300)
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
75.0 (2,595) 67.4 (2,342)
10.0 (345) 16.3 (566)
1.8 (64) 3.9 (137)
0.2 (8) 1.2 (42)
1.2 (43) 1.8 (63)
0.1 (5) 0.2 (7)
53.2 (1,560)
31.4 (920)
3.2 (93)
1.8 (52)
1.8 (52)
53.8 (1,519) 51.3 (2,016)
21.4 (604) 29.0 (1,141)
3.2 (91) 3.8 (151)
0.9 (26) 3.1 (120)
29.8 (686)
46.1 (1,061)
4.2 (96)
4.9 (113)
Female
Totalc
Source: Data come from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, an annual census of new doctorate recipients, and were tabulated by the authors using the National Science Foundation WebCASPAR Database System (available at: http://caspar.nsf.gov/webcaspar). a Asian includes Pacific Islanders. b American Indian includes Alaska Natives. c Total percentages might not equal 100 due to rounding. d Includes doctorates in public administration. e Excludes one case of unknown gender and unknown race-ethnicity.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 2 Percentage of social science doctoral recipients for racial-ethnic and gender groups, U.S. citizens and permanent residents, 1976–1980 and 1996–2000 (number of cases in parentheses)
115
116
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
A somewhat different picture has emerged over time in sociology. Between 1976–1980 and 1996–2000, the percentage of doctorates in sociology earned by White men declined dramatically while the percentage earned by men from other racial-ethnic groups increased somewhat. At the same time, the share of doctorates received by women in all racial-ethnic groups increased. As a result, within each racial-ethnic group, women earned a larger share of doctorates in sociology than men by 1996–2000.
3. Study description To investigate the gender and race-ethnicity of faculty, we use data that were collected from top research departments of economics, political science, and sociology. Top research departments are important to examine because they are highly influential, producing work that shapes the thinking of an entire discipline. Top research departments also tend to be top-ranked departments within a discipline. As a result, they train a disproportionate share of graduate students and place a disproportionate share of their graduates in faculty positions across the country. To study top research departments, we selected all the departments in each discipline that ranked in the top 50 for research and development expenditures according to the most recent National Science Foundation annual report on research and development expenditures available at the time our data were collected (National Science Foundation, 2001). Virtually all of the departments in our study are located in universities classified in either the Doctoral/Research Universities-Extensive category (89.4%) or the Doctoral/Research Universities-Intensive category (9.4%) of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (McCormick, 2001).3 For each of the top 50 departments in research and development expenditures within economics, political science, and sociology, department chairs were contacted and asked to report on the gender and race-ethnicity (Asian, Black, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Native American) of tenured and tenure-track faculty at the assistant, associate, and full professor levels for fiscal year 2002. In a limited number of instances, data were collected instead from other sources, such as department websites and published directories. Because the number of faculty reported to be Native American was small (one case for economics, two cases for political science, and two cases for sociology), Native Americans were excluded from the analysis. We analyze data for 1,338 cases in economics, 1,318 cases in political science, and 1,066 cases in sociology. It should be noted that these cases are unlikely to be representative of all doctoral recipients within each social science discipline. For example, top research universities nowadays tend to employ the most accomplished and promising doctoral recipients (National Science Foundation, 2003b). We are interested, however, in the extent to which the doctoral labor supply in each discipline corresponds with patterns of employment in top research departments.
4. Results The gender gap in faculty representation is greatest in economics, where 11.5% of faculty are female, and smallest in sociology, where 35.8% of faculty are female. Political science
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
117
Fig. 1. Racial-ethnic composition of faculty in top social science research departments.
is in between, with 23.5% of faculty being female. In sociology and political science then, it appears that there are critical masses of females in top research departments. Two-tailed t tests (results not shown) indicate the means (proportions) of males and females who are faculty in each discipline are statistically different (p ≤ .001). The racial-ethnic composition of faculty in economics, political science, and sociology are shown in Fig. 1. For each discipline, the percentages for the racial-ethnic groups shown in the figure sum to 100%. The percentage of White faculty is approximately the same across the three disciplines. The greatest representation of a non-White group is in economics, where Asians comprise almost 11% of the faculty. They constitute a smaller percentage of faculty in political science and sociology, about 5% in each discipline. The percentage of Black faculty ranges from 6.6% in sociology to 1.5% in economics. There is less variation in the percentage of Hispanics, ranging from 3.3% in sociology to 1.7% in political science. Thus, Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented relative to their proportions in the population but Asians are not. Two-tailed t tests for the means (proportions) of faculty for pairs of racial-ethnic groups (e.g., Blacks and Whites, Hispanics and Asians) in each social science field (results not shown) are significantly different at p ≤ .05 in all but a few instances.4 The percentage distributions of male and female faculty within each racial-ethnic group for each field are shown in Table 3. In every instance, there is a greater share of males than females within each racial-ethnic group. For Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, the gender difference in faculty representation is smallest in sociology and largest in economics. Among Asians, the gender difference in faculty representation is smallest in political science and largest in economics. In each of the disciplines, the gender gap is smaller among Blacks than the other
118
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 3 Percentage distributions of male and female faculty by race-ethnicity for top social science research departments (number of cases in parentheses) Economics White Male Female Total
Black
Hispanic
Asian
89.2 (1,054) 10.8 (128)
76.2 (16) 23.8 (5)
81.6 (31) 18.4 (7)
86.4 (127) 13.6 (20)
100.0 (1,182)
100.0 (21)
100.0 (38)
100.0 (147)
White
Blacka
Hispanic
Asian
F 2.02
Political science
Male Female Total
78.0 (910) 22.0 (256)
60.6 (40) 39.4 (26)
72.7 (16) 27.3 (6)
65.6 (42) 34.4 (22)
100.0 (1,166)
100.0 (66)
100.0 (22)
100.0 (64)
Black
Hispanic
F 5.11**
Sociology White Male Female Total a ∗∗
Asian
64.4 (586) 35.6 (324)
54.3 (38) 45.7 (32)
65.7 (23) 34.3 (12)
72.5 (37) 27.5 (14)
100.0 (910)
100.0 (70)
100.0 (35)
100.0 (51)
F 1.53
Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of Blacks relative to Whites p ≤ .01. p ≤ .01.
racial-ethnic groups, which is consistent with other research finding that women’s share of faculty is higher for Blacks than for other racial-ethnic groups (Astin et al., 1997; Nettles et al., 2000). As in Table 2, one is struck by the small absolute number of Black and Hispanic women in economics. Black women are the least represented group in economics. Hispanic women are the least represented group in both political science and sociology. One-way ANOVAs were performed to assess whether the gender composition of faculty varies by race-ethnicity in each field. The F values from the ANOVAs, which are located in the final column of Table 3, indicate that the gender composition of faculty does not vary significantly across racial-ethnic groups in either economics or sociology but does vary significantly across racial-ethnic groups in political science. Bonferroni pairwise comparison tests, which adjust the observed significance for the fact that multiple comparisons are being performed simultaneously, were used to assess gender differences in faculty composition across racialethnic groups in each discipline. Only the pairwise comparison of the gender composition of Black faculty relative to White faculty in political science is significant. Thus, the reason there is a significant F value for political science is because Blacks in political science have a significantly greater proportion of faculty who are female than do Whites. This provides additional evidence that the gender gap in faculty composition tends to be smaller among Blacks relative to other racial-ethnic groups. Otherwise, the gender composition of faculty is statistically similar across racial-ethnic groups. Table 4 gives the percentage distributions of women and men at each rank in each of the social science disciplines. The results indicate the higher the rank, the greater the percentage of men at the rank. Gender differences in rank are most striking in economics, where over 90%
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
119
Table 4 Percentage distributions of rank by gender for top social science research departments (number of cases in parentheses) Economics
Full Associate Assistant
Male
Femalea,b
Total
F
92.8 (762) 83.7 (210) 81.0 (256)
7.2 (59) 16.3 (41) 19.0 (60)
100.0 (821) 100.0 (251) 100.0 (316)
19.55***
Male
Femalea,b,c
Total
F
86.1 (543) 71.3 (268) 63.3 (197)
13.9 (88) 28.7 (108) 36.7 (114)
100.0 (631) 100.0 (376) 100.0 (311)
35.57***
Male
Femalea,b
Total
F
75.7 (404) 57.3 (157) 47.7 (123)
24.3 (130) 42.7 (117) 52.3 (135)
100.0 (534) 100.0 (274) 100.0 (258)
35.53***
Political science
Full Associate Assistant Sociology
Full Associate Assistant
Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to associate rank p ≤ .001. Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .001. c Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of associate rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .05. ∗∗∗ p ≤ .001. a
b
of the full professors are men. Gender differences within each rank are smallest in sociology, reflecting the greater feminization (i.e., representation of women) that has occurred within that discipline relative to the other disciplines. Nevertheless, results of the ANOVAs reveal statistically significant differences in gender composition across rank for all three disciplines, as indicated by the F values shown in Table 4. For each of the disciplines, Bonferroni pairwise comparison tests of the gender composition of the full rank relative to the associate rank and the full rank relative to the assistant rank indicate that a significantly smaller proportion of women are at the full rank than the associate rank or the assistant rank. In addition, the comparison test of the associate rank relative to the assistant rank is statistically significant for political science, indicating that a smaller proportion of women are at the associate rank than the assistant rank. Table 5 shows the percentage distributions of rank by race-ethnicity and gender for each field. In economics, there is a higher percentage of men than women at each rank for every racial-ethnic group. Among Blacks, there are no women at the associate rank. The F values indicate there are statistically significant differences in gender composition across ranks for Whites and Asians in economics, but not for Blacks and Hispanics, which may be due to their small numbers. The Bonferroni pairwise comparisons of rank indicate a significantly smaller proportion of women are at the full rank than at the associate rank for Whites, and a significantly smaller proportion of women are at the full rank than at the assistant rank for both Whites and Asians. Thus, while there generally are greater shares of men than women at each rank, women’s share of faculty positions across ranks within economics varies significantly for Whites and Asians, with even smaller shares of women at higher ranks than lower ranks.
120
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Table 5 Percentage distributions of rank by gender and race-ethnicity for top social science research departments (number of cases in parentheses) Male Economics Whitea,b Full Associate Assistant Black Full Associate Assistant
93.3 (697) 81.6 (168) 82.5 (189) 70.0 (7) 100.0 (5) 66.7 (4)
Female
Total
F
6.7 (50) 18.4 (38) 17.5 (40)
100.0 (747) 100.0 (206) 100.0 (229)
18.55***
30.0 (3) – 33.3 (2)
100.0 (10) 100.0 (5) 100.0 (6)
.99
Hispanic Full Associate Assistant
82.4 (14) 83.3 (5) 80.0 (12)
17.6 (3) 16.7 (1) 20.0 (3)
100.0 (17) 100.0 (6) 100.0 (15)
.02
Asianc Full Associate Assistant
93.6 (44) 94.1 (32) 77.3 (51)
6.4 (3) 5.9 (2) 22.7 (15)
100.0 (47) 100.0 (34) 100.0 (66)
4.41*
Political science Whitea,b,d Full Associate Assistant
86.2 (506) 73.4 (235) 65.3 (169)
13.8 (81) 26.6 (85) 34.7 (90)
100.0 (587) 100.0 (320) 100.0 (259)
26.87***
Black Full Associate Assistant
77.3 (17) 46.4 (13) 62.5 (10)
22.7 (5) 53.6 (15) 37.5 (6)
100.0 (22) 100.0 (28) 100.0 (16)
2.55
– 25.0 (2) 50.0 (4)
100.0 (6) 100.0 (8) 100.0 (8)
2.34
87.5 (14) 70.0 (14) 50.0 (14)
12.5 (2) 30.0 (6) 50.0 (14)
100.0 (16) 100.0 (20) 100.0 (28)
3.50*
75.5 (367) 55.7 (123) 47.3 (96)
24.5 (119) 44.3 (98) 52.7 (107)
100.0 (486) 100.0 (221) 100.0 (203)
31.71***
69.6 (16) 47.6 (10) 46.2 (12)
30.4 (7) 52.4 (11) 53.8 (14)
100.0 (23) 100.0 (21) 100.0 (26)
1.62
Hispanic Full Associate Assistant Asianc Full Associate Assistant Sociology Whitea,b Full Associate Assistant Black Full Associate Assistant
100.0 (6) 75.0 (6) 50.0 (4)
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
121
Table 5 (Continued ) Male
Female
Total
F
Hispanic Full Associate Assistant
80.0 (8) 69.2 (9) 50.0 (6)
20.0 (2) 30.8 (4) 50.0 (6)
100.0 (10) 100.0 (13) 100.0 (12)
1.12
Asian Full Associate Assistant
86.7 (13) 78.9 (15) 52.9 (9)
13.3 (2) 21.1 (4) 47.1 (8)
100.0 (15) 100.0 (19) 100.0 (17)
2.71
Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to associate rank p ≤ .001. Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .001. c Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of full rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .05. d Results of Bonferroni two-tailed pairwise comparison test of associate rank relative to assistant rank p ≤ .05. ∗ p ≤ .05. ∗∗∗ p ≤ .001. a
b
The percentage distributions for political science suggest less gender inequity in political science than in economics. For example, unlike economics, there are equal proportions of Hispanic women and men and Asian women and men at the assistant rank. Also in contrast to economics, the gender composition for Blacks at the associate rank is relatively equitable. (However, the slightly higher percentage of Black females than males at the associate rank might suggest that Black females are promoted more slowly than Black males from the associate rank to the full rank.) Like economics, the F values in political science for Whites and Asians indicate statistically significant differences in gender composition. For Whites, all pairwise comparison tests show statistically significant differences, that is, a smaller proportion of women at the full rank than the associate and assistant ranks and a smaller proportion of women at the associate rank than the assistant rank. For Asians, a pairwise comparison test shows a significantly smaller share of women at the full rank than at the assistant rank. (All other pairwise comparison tests for Asians are not significant.) The smallest gender differences are found in sociology. The F values from the ANOVAs indicate a significant effect for Whites only in gender composition across ranks. The Bonferroni pairwise comparison tests indicate that the significant variation for Whites results from a significantly smaller share of women at the full rank than at the associate and assistant ranks.
5. Discussion and conclusions Our results show a critical mass of women in sociology and in political science but not in economics. Thus, the situation of women in top research departments of economics may be more difficult than that of women in top research departments of political science or sociology. Women in top research departments of economics may be at greater risk for tokenism and its concomitants, including isolation and marginality (Kanter, 1977). They may fare worse in terms of career advancement, as previous research suggests that a critical mass of women may be
122
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
important in this regard (e.g., Sonnert & Holton, 1995). With respect to race-ethnicity, Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented relative to their shares of the population while Asians are not. These patterns raise concerns about the extent of social equity in science (Pearson & Fechter, 1994) and adherence to the ideal that scientific careers “should be open to talent” (Merton, [1942] 1973, p. 272). Within each racial-ethnic group, there are more male than female faculty members. Overall, the gender gap in faculty representation is smaller for Blacks than for other racial-ethnic groups. However, the absolute numbers of Black women in economics, as well as Hispanic women in economics and political science, are quite low. The situation for these women may be especially difficult. It has been suggested that minority women face “double jeopardy” because they belong to two disadvantaged groups (e.g., Kulis & Miller, 1988). For example, minority women report performing a large amount of committee work, which may be because they can simultaneously fill both the “woman” and “minority” slots on committees (Kulis & Miller, 1988; Turner & Myers, 2000). They report performing committee work that is not highly valued and does not lead to positions of authority and status (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Turner & Myers, 2000). Such work leaves them with less time for research, which is critical for tenure and promotion. Because research expectations are likely to be greater at top research departments than elsewhere, minority women’s heavy committee responsibilities may be particularly detrimental to their careers in top social science research departments. Results by rank generally indicate the higher the rank, the higher the percentage of males at the rank, especially for Whites and Asians. Gender differences at each rank are greatest in economics and smallest in sociology. Although there may be a critical mass of women overall in top research departments of sociology and political science, what may be most important in terms of influencing departments, universities, and disciplines is a critical mass of women at the full rank. There appears to be a critical mass of women at the full rank in sociology only. Our study provides a richer description of faculty representation for groups defined by both gender and race-ethnicity than most previous research. However, there are limitations to the research presented here. Because only a small amount of data about faculty were gathered in our study, we are unable to investigate adequately the possible reasons for the gender and racial-ethnic patterns of faculty representation we find. Thus, we can only speculate as to the reasons for the patterns we report here. Gender and racial-ethnic differences in faculty representation and rank are likely due in part to gender and racial-ethnic differences in receipt of doctorates. While group differences in doctoral supply may be a key factor, group differences with respect to other factors also may contribute. Individual factors, such as prestige of the doctoral credentials, collaborations with mentors, having children, and time spent as faculty in teaching, service work, and other nonresearch activities have been shown to differ by gender or race-ethnicity or both (Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999; Long, 1990; Long & Fox, 1995; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Turner & Thompson, 1993; Xie & Shauman, 2003). Gender or racialethnic differences in the possible effects of these factors on representation and rank may be exacerbated at top social science research departments, given the prestige of these departments and the high expectations for performance, especially in the areas of research and publishing, that these departments are likely to have.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
123
Effects of institutional factors, such as personnel practices, institutional size, and the presence of female and racial-ethnic minority students and administrators on the presence, tenure status, and rank of female and racial-ethnic minority faculty, respectively, have been found (e.g., Kulis, 1998; Kulis, Chong, & Shaw, 1999; Turner & Myers, 2000). The effects that institutional factors might have on the presence of female and racial-ethnic minorities in top social science research departments in particular should be investigated. Finally, the possible existence of either covert or overt discrimination against women and racial-ethnic minorities in top social science research departments should not be ignored. Factors unique to each discipline also may explain the gender and racial-ethnic composition of top research departments within that discipline. Particular attention should be paid to top research departments of economics. Compared to the other fields we examine, economics has the smallest percentage of female and Black faculty and the largest percentage of Asian faculty, but a greater percentage of Hispanics than political science. Disciplinary differences in gender and racial-ethnic composition may reflect to some extent disciplinary differences in the gender and racial-ethnic composition of the doctoral labor supply.5 Table 1 shows that in economics, women and Blacks have been smaller shares of doctoral recipients and Asians have been a larger share of doctoral recipients relative to their shares in the other two fields. However, it is possible that factors other than gender and racial-ethnic differences in doctoral labor supply may be at work. For example, Table 1 shows that Hispanics have held a similar share of economics doctorates as Blacks, but there are almost twice as many Hispanics than Blacks in top research departments of economics. Disciplinary differences in the availability and employment of foreign-born scholars could be another factor responsible for the patterns we find (e.g., the larger percentage of faculty who are Asian in economics compared to political science and sociology).6 Unfortunately, we did not ask about national origin of faculty in our study. Finally, differences in the cultures of academic disciplines (Becher, 1989) may be another factor that is related to disciplinary variations in the gender and racialethnic composition of faculty in top research departments. Future research should consider carefully how specific characteristics of disciplines may vary, and how these variations might influence the gender and racial-ethnic composition of faculty in top social science research departments. Future research should also consider how individual, institutional, disciplinary, and other factors affect the hiring, retention, and promotion of groups defined by both gender and raceethnicity. Admittedly, research that examines groups defined by both gender and race-ethnicity might be difficult to do, given the small number of faculty from certain gender and racial-ethnic groups, such as Black and Hispanic males and females. Indeed, we encountered small numbers from these groups in our own analysis. Qualitative research may serve as a key step in this regard. Finally, studies are needed that consider the implications of the decline in new White male Ph.D.s—especially in sociology, where White males now constitute less than a third of all new Ph.D.s—on faculty composition. Whether these men are being offered more “rewards,” such as faculty positions in prestigious departments, in order to stay in their respective disciplines (Spalter-Roth & Lee, 2000) should be investigated. If this is the case, it may disadvantage women and people of color in obtaining faculty positions within top research departments.
124
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
Notes 1. Not all social science Ph.D.s work in academia, although the majority (approximately two-thirds) of them do (National Science Foundation, 2003a). Research thus far has failed to show strong effects of nonacademic employment opportunities on the gender or racial-ethnic composition of faculty in science and engineering (Kulis, Shaw, & Chong, 2000; Kulis, Sicotte, & Collins, 2002). 2. “American Indian” and “Black” are the terms used in government classifications of race. We use the terms interchangeably with “Native American” and “African American,” respectively. 3. One department is located in the Specialized-Other category. It should be noted that these categories differ somewhat from those used in earlier Carnegie Classifications (e.g., the earlier classification system had four categories for doctorate-granting institutions while the new classification system has two). 4. These are the t tests for the means (proportions) of Blacks and Asians in political science, and both Blacks and Asians and Hispanics and Asians in sociology. 5. One explanation for gender and racial-ethnic differences in receipt of economics degrees is that “women and students of color may find the abstract modeling of economics not so much daunting as tangential to their interests and primary ways of knowing” (Bartlett, 1995, p. 364). 6. Research has found that the underrepresentation of females and native-born Blacks and Hispanics among science and engineering faculty persists when national origin of faculty is considered (Kulis, Sicotte, & Collins, 2002; Turner & Myers, 2000).
References Astin, H. S., Antonio, A. L., Cress, C. M., & Astin, A. W. (1997). Race and ethnicity in the American professoriate 1995–96. Los Angeles: Higher Education Institute, UCLA. Bae, Y., Choy, S., Geddes, C., Sable, J., & Snyder, T. (2000). Trends in educational equity for girls and women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Bartlett, R. L. (1995). Attracting “otherwise bright students” to economics 101. American Economic Review, 85, 362–366. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Bristol, PA: Society for Research Into Higher Education and Open University Press. Bellas, M. L., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race, and family effects. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 367–390. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., Uzzi, B., & Alonzo, J. (1994, October 7). The paradox of critical mass for women in science. Science, 266, 51–54. Harvey, W. B. (2002). Minorities in higher education 2001–2002: Nineteenth annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Minorities in Higher Education. Hoffer, T. B., Dugoni, B. L., Sanderson, A. R., Sederstrom, S., Welch, V., Guzman-Barron, I., et al. (2002). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2001. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Kulis, S. (1998). Organizational variations in women scientists’ representation in academia. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 43–67.
A.M. Beutel, D.J. Nelson / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 111–125
125
Kulis, S., Chong, Y., & Shaw, H. (1999). Discriminatory organizational contexts and black scientists on postsecondary faculties. Research in Higher Education, 40, 115–148. Kulis, S., & Miller, K. A. (1988). Are minority women sociologists in double jeopardy? The American Sociologist, 19, 323–339. Kulis, S., Shaw, H., & Chong, Y. (2000). External labor markets and the distribution of black scientists and engineers in academia. Journal of Higher Education, 40, 187–222. Kulis, S., Sicotte, D., & Collins, S. (2002). More than a pipeline problem: Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 43, 657– 691. Long, J. S. (1990). The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68, 1297–1315. Long, J. S. (Ed.). (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 45–71. McCormick, A. C. (Ed.). (2000). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education, 2000 edition. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The condition of education 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Science Board. (2002). National science and engineering indicators—2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2000). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2001). Academic research and development expenditures: Fiscal year 1999. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2003a). Characteristics of doctoral scientists and engineers in the United States: 2001. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2003b). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers: A literature review. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation. (2003c). WebCASPAR Database System. Accessed May at http://caspar.nsf. gov/webcaspar. Nettles, M. T., Perna, L. W., & Bradburn, E. M. (2000). Salary, promotion, and tenure status of minority and women faculty in U.S. colleges and universities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Pearson, W., & Fechter, A. (Eds.). (1994). Who will do science? Educating the next generation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Roos, P. A., & Jones, K. W. (1993). Shifting gender boundaries: Women’s inroads into academic sociology. Work and Occupations, 20, 395–428. Sonnert, G., & Holton, G. (1995). Gender differences in science careers: The project access study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Spalter-Roth, R. M., & Lee, S. (2000). Gender in the early stages of the sociological career. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany: State University of New York Press. Turner, C. S. V., & Myers, S. L., Jr. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Turner, C. S. V., & Thompson, J. R. (1993). Socializing women doctoral students: Minority and majority experiences. Review of Higher Education, 16, 355–370. U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.