Turning Chutes into Ladders for Women Faculty: A Review and Roadmap for Equity in Academia
Publication: Journal of Women's Health
Volume 29, Issue Number 5
Abstract
Despite significant progress in recent decades, the recruitment, advancement, and promotion of women in academia remain low. Women represent a large portion of the talent pool in academia, and receive >50% of all PhDs, but this has not yet translated into sustained representation in faculty and leadership positions. Research indicates that women encounter numerous “chutes” that remove them from academia or provide setbacks to promotion at all stages of their careers. These include the perception that women are less competent and their outputs of lesser quality, implicit bias in teaching evaluations and grant funding decisions, and lower citation rates. This review aims to (1) synthesize the “chutes” that impede the careers of women faculty, and (2) provide feasible recommendations, or “ladders” for addressing these issues at all career levels. Enacting policies that function as “ladders” rather than “chutes” for academic women is essential to even the playing field, achieve gender equity, and foster economic, societal, and cultural benefits of academia.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2015.
2. Okahana H, Zhou E. Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 2007 to 2017. Council of Graduate Schools. Washington, DC, 2018.
3. National Center for Education Statistics IDC. Full-time instructional staff, by faculty and tenure status, academic rank, race/ethnicity, and gender (degree-granting institutions): Fall 2015. Fall Staff 2015 Survey, 2016.
4. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:16474–16479.
5. Mengel F, Sauermann J, Zölitz U. Gender bias in teaching evaluations. J Eur Econ Assoc 2018;17:jvx057–jvx057.
6. Hechtman LA, Moore NP, Schulkey CE, et al. NIH funding longevity by gender. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018;115:7943–7948.
7. Dion ML, Sumner JL, Mitchell SM. Gendered citation patterns across political science and social science methodology fields. Polit Anal 2018;26:312–327.
8. Villablanca AC, Li Y, Beckett LA, Howell LP. Evaluating a medical school's climate for women's success: Outcomes for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion. J Womens Health 2017;26:530–539.
9. Williams WM, Ceci SJ. National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:5360–5365.
10. Jena AB, Khullar D, Ho O, Olenski AR, Blumenthal DM. Sex differences in academic rank in US Medical Schools in 2014. JAMA 2015;314:1149–1158.
11. Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, Ritzke D. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A National Empirical Study. Sex Roles 1999;41:509–528.
12. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ, Huge M. The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci Commun 2013;35:603–625.
13. Cech EA, Blair-Loy M. The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2019:201810862.
14. Goulden M, Mason MA, Frasch K. Keeping women in the science pipeline. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2011;638:141–162.
15. Johnson HL. Pipelines, Pathways, and Institutional Leadership: An Update on the Status of Women in Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Council of Education, 2017.
16. Glover J, Fielding J. Women and the sciences in Britain: Getting in? J Educ Work 1999;12:57–73.
17. Christiansen L, Lin H, Pereira J, Topalova P, Turk R. Gender diversity in senior positions and firm performance: Evidence from Europe. Washington, DC: IMF Working Paper, 2016.
18. Herring C. Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. Am Sociol Rev 2009;74:208–224.
19. Benschop Y, Brouns M. Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gend Work Organ 2003;10:194–212.
20. Hurtado S, Alvarez CL, Guillermo-Wann C, Cuellar M, Arellano L. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. New York: Springer, 2012.
21. MacNell L, Driscoll A, Hunt AN. What's in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. J Collect Bargain Acad 2014;0:1–13.
22. Martin LL. Gender, teaching evaluations, and profession success in political science. Polit Sci Politics 2016:313–319.
23. Bendels MHK, Muller R, Brueggmann D, Groneberg DA. Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals. PLoS One 2018;13:e0189136.
24. Stewart A, Valian V. An inclusive academy: Achieving diversity and excellence. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018.
25. Rojek AE, Khanna R, Yim JWL, et al. Differences in narrative language in evaluations of medical students by gender and under-represented minority status. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:684–691.
26. Trix F, Psenka C. Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discour Soc 2003;14:191–220.
27. Stepan-Norris J, Kerrissey J. Enhancing gender equity in academia: Lessons from the ADVANCE Program. Sociol Perspect 2016;59:225–245.
28. Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki VH. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles 2007;57:509–514.
29. King MM, Bergstrom CT, Correll SJ, Jacquet J, West JD. Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius 2017;3:2378023117738903.
30. Devine PG, Forscher PS, Cox WTL, Kaatz A, Sheridan J, Carnes M. A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM Departments. J Exp Soc Psychol 2017;73:211–215.
31. Gumpertz M, Durodoye R, Griffith E, Wilson A. Retention and promotion of women and underrepresented minority faculty in science and engineering at four large land grant institutions. PLoS One 2017;12:e0187285.
32. Carr PL, Gunn C, Raj A, Kaplan S, Freund KM. Recruitment, promotion, and retention of women in academic medicine: How institutions are addressing gender disparities. Womens Health Issues 2017;27:374–381.
33. Levine RB, Lin F, Kern DE, Wright SM, Carrese J. Stories from early-career women physicians who have left academic medicine: A qualitative study at a single institution. Acad Med 2011;86:752–758.
34. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Junior faculty members' mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 1998;73:318–323.
35. Ramanan RA, Phillips RS, Davis RB, Silen W, Reede JY. Mentoring in medicine: Keys to satisfaction. Am J Med 2002;112:336–341.
36. Levinson W, Kaufman K, Clark B, Tolle SW. Mentors and role models for women in academic medicine. West J Med 1991;154:423–426.
37. Mayer AP, Files JA, Ko MG, Blair JE. Academic advancement of women in medicine: Do socialized gender differences have a role in mentoring? Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83:204–207.
38. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: A systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1103–1115.
39. Athanasiou T, Patel V, Garas G, et al. Mentoring perception, scientific collaboration and research performance: Is there a ‘gender gap’ in academic medicine? An Academic Health Science Centre perspective. Postgrad Med J 2016;92:581–586.
40. Soklaridis S, Zahn C, Kuper A, Gillis D, Taylor VH, Whitehead C. Men's fear of mentoring in the #MeToo Era—What's at stake for academic medicine? N Engl J Med 2018;379:2270–2274.
41. DeCastro R, Griffith KA, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Mentoring and the career satisfaction of male and female academic medical faculty. Acad Med 2014;89:301–311.
42. Mylona E, Brubaker L, Williams VN, et al. Does formal mentoring for faculty members matter? A survey of clinical faculty members. Med Educ 2016;50:670–681.
43. Byrne MW, Keefe MR. Building research competence in nursing through mentoring. J Nurs Scholarsh 2002;34:391–396.
44. Williams LS. The effects of a comprehensive teaching assistant training program on teaching anxiety and effectiveness. Res Higher Educ 1991;32:585–598.
45. DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Mentor networks in academic medicine: Moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers. Acad Med 2013;88:488–496.
46. Zellers DF, Howard VM, Barcic MA. Faculty mentoring programs: Reenvisioning rather than reinventing the wheel. Rev Educ Res 2008;78:552–588.
47. Pololi L, Knight S. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm? J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:866–870.
48. Graham JM. The general linear model as structural equation modeling. J Educ Behav Stat 2007:1076998607306151.
49. Mitchell KMW, Martin J. Gender bias in student evaluations. Polit Sci Politics 2018:648–652.
50. Storage D, Horne Z, Cimpian A, Leslie S-J. The frequency of “Brilliant” and “Genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across Fields. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0150194.
51. Wallisch P, Cachia J. Are student evaluations really biased by gender? Nope, They're Biased by “Hotness”. 2018. Available at: https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/hotness-affects-student-evaluations-more-than-gender.html Accessed November 23, 2018.
52. Guarino CM, Borden VMH. Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Res Higher Educ 2017;58:672–694.
53. Misra J, Lundquist JH, Holmes E, Agiomavritis S. The ivory ceiling of service work. American Association of University Professors. January–February, 2011.
54. Gentry R, Stokes D. Strategies for professors who service the university to earn tenure and promotion. Res Higher Educ J 2015;29:1–13.
55. Drago R, Colbeck CL, Stauffer KD, et al. The avoidance of bias against caregiving. The case of academic faculty. Am Behav Sci 2006;49:1222–1247.
56. Goulden M, Frasch K, Mason MA. Staying competative: Patching America's leaky pipeline in the sciences. Stanford, CA: Berkeley Center on Health EFSatCfAP, 2009.
57. Schiebinger LL, Henderson AD, Gilmartin SK. Dual-career academic couples: What universities need to know: Michelle R. Clayman institute for gender research. Stanford University, 2008.
58. Schiebinger L, Gilmartin SK. Housework is an academic issue. Academe 2010;96:39–44.
59. Antecol H, Bedard K, Stearns J. Equal but inequitable: Who benefits from gender-neutral tenure clock stopping policies? Bonn, Germany: IZA Institute of Labor Economics, 2016.
60. Kwegyir-Afful E, Adu G, Spelten ER, Räsänen K, Verbeek J. Maternity leave duration and adverse pregnancy outcomes: An international country-level comparison. Scand J Publ Health 2018;46:798–804.
61. Lee Y, Tang F. More caregiving, less working: Caregiving roles and gender difference. J Appl Gerontol 2015;34:465–483.
62. Huang R, Yang M. Paid maternity leave and breastfeeding practice before and after California's implementation of the nation's first paid family leave program. Econ Hum Biol 2015;16:45–59.
63. Berger LM, Hill J, Waldfogel J. Maternity leave, early maternal employment and child health and development in the US. Econ J 2005;115:F29–F47.
64. Aitken Z, Garrett CC, Hewitt B, Keogh L, Hocking JS, Kavanagh AM. The maternal health outcomes of paid maternity leave: A systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2015;130:32–41.
65. Ruhm CJ, Waldfogel J: Long-term effects of early childhood care and education. Nordic Econ Pol Rev 2012;1:23–51.
66. Dustmann C, Schönberg U. Expansions in maternity leave coverage and children's long-term outcomes. Am Econ J 2012;4:190–224.
67. Organization IL. R191 - Maternity Protection Recommendation, 2017 (No 191). Geneva: 88th ILC session, 2017.
68. Burtle A, Bezruchka S. Population health and paid parental leave: What the United States can learn from two decades of research. Healthcare (Basel) 2016;4.
69. Laughlin L. Maternity leave and employment: patterns of first-time mothers 1961–2008. Bureau USC, 2011.
70. Ruppanner L, Maume DJ. The state of domestic affairs: Housework, gender and state-level institutional logics. Soc Sci Res 2016;60:15–28.
71. Rhoads SE, Rhoads CH. Gender roles and infant/toddler care: Male and female professors on the tenure track. J Soc Evol Cult Psychol 2012;6:13–31.
72. Mason MA, Goulden M. Do babies matter? The effect of family formation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women. Academe 2002;88:21–27.
73. Halley MC, Rustagi AS, Torres JS, et al. Physician mothers' experience of workplace discrimination: A qualitative analysis. BMJ 2018;363:k4926.
74. Kyvik S, Teigen M. Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Sci Technol Hum Values 1996;21:54–71.
75. Bianchi SM, Sayer LC, Milkie MA, Robinson JP. Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Soc Forces 2012;91:55–63.
76. Vogel N. Meeting special needs: A benefit that adds value for both employees and employers. Compens Benef Rev 2006;38:57–61.
77. Council ECaL. Why should employers care? Relationship between productivity and working parents. Available at: https://childcarecouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Why-Should-Employers-Care-ECLC.pdf Accessed October 11, 2018.
78. NIH Grants Policy Statement. Available at: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_14/14.10_allowable_and_unallowable_costs.htm Accessed December 4, 2018.
79. Murtagh L, Moulton AD. Working mothers, breastfeeding, and the law. Am J Publ Health 2011;101:217–223.
80. Office on women Health. Your guide to breastfeeding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018, p45.
81. Dieterich CM, Felice JP, O'Sullivan E, Rasmussen KM. Breastfeeding and health outcomes for the mother-infant dyad. Pediatr Clin N Am 2013;60:31–48.
82. Cohen R, Mrtek MB, Mrtek RG. Comparison of maternal absenteeism and infant illness rates among breast-feeding and formula-feeding women in two corporations. Am J Health Promot 1995;10:148–153.
83. Ortiz J, McGilligan K, Kelly P. Duration of breast milk expression among working mothers enrolled in an employer-sponsored lactation program. Pediatr Nurs 2004;30:111–119.
84. Galtry J. Lactation and the labor market: Breastfeeding, labor market changes, and public policy in the United States. Health Care Women Int 1997;18:467–480.
85. National Institute of Health Nursing Mothers Program, Division of Occupational Health and Safety. Available at: https://www.ors.od.nih.gov/sr/dohs/HealthAndWellness/Pages/lactation.aspx Accessed May 12, 2019.
86. The Washington Post. IBM will make it easy for new moms to ship home breast milk for free while traveling. July 13, 2015. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/13/ibm-will-make-it-easy-for-new-moms-to-ship-home-breast-milk-for-free-while-traveling Accessed January 8, 2020.
87. Ladores S, Debiasi L, Currie E. Breastfeeding women in academia: Pursuing tenure track versus “mommy” track. Clin Lact 2019;10:11–16.
88. Joliff L, Leadley J, Coakley E, Sloanne RA. Women in U.S. academic medicine and science: Statistics and Benchmarking Report 2011–2012. Washington, DC: Colleges AoAM, 2012.
89. Health NIo. NIH Reporter 2018. Available at: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter_SearchResults.cfm?icde=41342542 Accessed February 25, 2019.
90. Berenbaum MR. Speaking of gender bias. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2019:201904750.
91. Etzkowitz H, Kemelgor C, Uzzi B. Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
92. Sege R, Nykiel-Bub L, Selk S. Sex differences in institutional support for junior researchers. JAMA 2015;314:1175–1177.
93. Bowles HR, Babcock L, Lai L. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2007;103:84–103.
94. Oliveira DFM, Ma Y, Woodruff TK, Uzzi B. Comparison of National Institutes of Health grant amounts to first-time male and female principal investigators. JAMA 2019;321:898–900.
95. Kaatz A, Lee Y-G, Potvien A, et al. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques, impact, and criteria scores: Does the sex of the principal investigator make a difference? Acad Med 2016;91:1080–1088.
96. Travis EL, Doty L, Helitzer DL. Sponsorship: a path to the academic medicine C-suite for women faculty? Acad Med 2013;88:1414–1417.
97. Langan A. Female managers and gender disparities. The case of Academic Department Chairs. Princeton, NJ: Job Market Paper, 2018.
98. Milkman KL, Akinola M, Chugh D. What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. J Appl Psychol 2015;100:1678–1712.
99. Zambrana R. Toxic Ivory Towers: The health consequences of work stress on the health of underrepresented minority faculty. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2018.
100. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual harrassment of women: Climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Consensus Study Report, 2018.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published online: 13 May 2020
Published in print: May 2020
Published ahead of print: 11 February 2020
Topics
Authors
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
M.I.C. is funded by the National Institutes of Health (K01HL141535). No funding was received to support this project.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.