The reason to ask whether there is equity in tenure and promotion decisions today is that there is a body of evidence suggesting that there is inequity. Specifically, the literature suggests that women as a group are less likely to receive tenure or a promotion (and it may take longer for women to reach those milestones). This section reviews several key studies on gender and tenure and promotion and identifies two reasons why there might be differences regarding rates of and time to tenure and promotion.
Several quantitative studies found that women were less likely than men to be tenured or promoted, or that women took longer to advance.[89] Examples include the National Research Council (NRC) (2001), Perna (2001a), Ginther (2001), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) (2004d). The NRC (2001) examined gender patterns in academic careers using data from selected years of the SDR: 1973, 1979, 1989, and 1995. Using a broad definition of Science and Engineering (S&E), which included the social sciences, and examining a wide range of higher education institutions, the NRC compared the percentage of men and women who had tenure among all tenure-track faculty. In 1995, 60 percent of women had tenure and 40 percent were tenure-track, while 79 percent of men had tenure and 21 percent were tenure-track. Second, the NRC examined men and women at different points in time in their careers, grouping men and women by the number of years that had elapsed since they received their Ph. D.[90] In examining men 1 year out, 2 years out, 3 years out, etc., the 2001 NRC report found a greater percentage of men were tenured than women (with the exception that a greater percentage of women were tenured among very recent Ph. D.s). Finally, using logit analysis, the NRC found that the difference between the percentage of men with tenure
|
TABLE 5-3 Female Participation in Tenure and Promotion Coimnittees
|
 |
NOTE: Number of cases in each field is in parentheses.
SOURCE: Survey of departments carried out by the Committee on Gender Differences in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.
and the percentage of women with tenure favored men, even when controlling for factors such as field, career age, and institution type. The 2001 NRC report also included individual factors such as citizenship, marital status, and family status, in addition to whether the institution was public or private. A parallel analysis for male and female full professors found similar results.
Perna (2001a) sought, among other questions, to assess whether the probability of being tenured or holding the rank of full professor was related to gender, after controlling for other factors that might affect the tenure and promotion decision. Perna used logit analysis on a different national data set, the 1993 NSOPF. Two findings are of interest: “Women and men who are participating in the tenure process appear to be equally likely to be tenured after taking into account other differences” (p. 561). On the other hand, the study notes, “Tenured women faculty at 4-year institutions are less likely than tenured men faculty to hold the highest rank of full professor even after controlling for differences in human capital, research productivity, and structural characteristics” (p. 561).
Ginther’s analysis (2001) pooled cross-sectional samples of tenured or tenure-track faculty from the 1973 to 1997 SDR. She created a second analysis file by linking data on individuals who received a Ph. D. between 1972 and 1989 and who were sampled across several SDR waves. Ginther used probit models and duration models to assess whether there are gender disparities in the probability of “promotion to tenure.” Her principal finding was “women are less likely to be promoted than men” (p. 20). Hazard analysis also suggested that women are about 12 percent less likely to be tenured.
Like the Ginther study, a recent study conducted by the NSF (2004d) used linked SDR data on individuals over time to examine whether gender was related to either particular outcomes on the career path or how long it takes “doctorate recipients to achieve career milestones” (p. 1). This study found that “women with eight or nine years of postdoctoral experience are about 5.9 percentage points less likely than men to be tenured. The comparable estimate for women with 14 or 15 years of experience is about 4.1 percentage points” (p. 3). Similarly, women were less likely to be full professors: “After accounting for controls, women with 14 or 15 years of postdoctoral experience who are employed full-time in academia are almost 14 percentage points less likely than men to be employed at the rank of full professor. The comparable estimate for women with 20 or 21 years of postdoctoral experience is similar” (p. 3).
Two competing hypotheses could underlie these findings. First, it could be that women present weaker cases for tenure due to lower productivity. Alternatively, women’s lower rates of promotion could result from bias that causes women with equivalent qualifications to be judged less positively than similar male colleagues. With regard to the first hypothesis, the SDR provides some support for the case that female faculty produced less scholarly output in terms of numbers of publications. It has been proposed that women have fewer publications either because they receive fewer resources from their universities to support research, or because women spend less time on research. Although it is plausible that women could spend less time on professional activities if they are the primary caregivers at home and have more responsibilities outside of work, our data, presented in Chapter 4, show that in four of the six disciplines considered, women and men spend comparable percentages of their time in research-related activities.
The second rationale to explain why women might have a lower likelihood of receiving tenure or a promotion is evaluative bias on the part of their peers during tenure or promotion decisions. Bias may occur in several ways. First, women’s research may be undervalued by colleagues. Second, women’s teaching evaluations may not be as positive as those for men because of student bias. Third, women’s external letters of recommendation may not be as positive.[91] However, determination of which two competing hypotheses provides the better explanation for why women take longer to achieve career milestones can only be addressed through the collection of longitudinal data tracking candidates as they go from degree through the various career stages.
A newer study on probability of faculty receiving tenure and promotions has found a much more equitable situation. Ginther and Kahn (2006) recently examined three issues with respect to gender differences: (1) the probability of holding a tenure-track job within 5 years of receiving a Ph. D.; (2) for those who hold a tenure track job, the probability of having tenure 11 years after receiving a Ph. D.; and (3) for those who received tenure by 15 years past receipt of a Ph. D., the probability of being a full professor 15 years after receipt of a Ph. D. The study drew on the entire SDR from 1973 through 2001. As summarized in their abstract, the authors found “that in science overall, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor after controlling for demographic, family, employer and productivity covariates and that in many cases, there is no gender difference in promotion to tenure or full professor even without controlling for covariates.”
The next section presents descriptive data on tenure and promotion, based on data collected in the committee’s departmental survey. By examining data on all tenure cases evaluated in the prior 2 years, this analysis avoids the pitfall of studying only men and women who currently hold faculty positions. The following section uses multivariate methods to explore the effect of structural factors on promotion decisions for male and female faculty.