Diane Bates and Elizabeth Borland

Polymath: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Arts & Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, Spring 2014

FITTING IN AND STALLING OUT:

COLLEGIALITY, MENTORING, AND ROLE STRAIN AMONG PROFESSORS IN THE

SCIENCES AT A PRIMARILY UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTION

Diane Bates and Elizabeth Borland

THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY

Abstract

Findings from studies conducted at Research Oriented Institutions (ROI) have identified distinct

patterns in the academic workplace that disadvantage women professors in the promotion process,

particularly in science disciplines. This study uses a mixed-methods approach to investigate whether

three of these patterns exist in a Primarily Undergraduate Institution (PUI), where occupational

expectations include teaching and extensive service, as well as research productivity. Qualitative

interviews and quantitative survey data are used to demonstrate that there are important differences

between institution types. First, we test whether a hostile workplace climate and isolation are pronounced

for women scientists. While interviews parallel findings from ROIs, surveys found few differences by

gender or discipline in a wide variety of climate measures, including personal and professional isolation.

We attribute this to collegial relationships across campus, linked to distinct patterns of mentorship: men

reported more informal mentors within their departments, while women, and especially women scientists,

identified more informal mentors elsewhere on campus. The formation of these relationships is consistent

with ROI research indicating that women are more likely to engage in campus-wide service activities as a

means of reducing isolation and combatting hostile climates within their own departments. Our data

suggest, however, that women devote no more time, on average, to service activities than men, which

again contradicts findings from ROIs. Since neither climate nor involvement in service explain gender

inequality in professional advancement at the PUI, we suggest that unequal responsibilities between men

and women professors for non-work and particularly family responsibilities account for these differences.

Introduction

Decades of research have shown that faculty life at research-oriented institutions (ROIs) can be

difficult, particularly for women (Fox 2010; Neumann 2009; Sanders, Willemsen, and Millar 2009; Hayes

2004; Finkelstein, Seal, and Schuster 1998; Tierney and Bensimon 1996; Clark 1987). These problems

may be even worse for women in the “STEM” disciplines—science, technology, engineering and math—

where they are under-represented (National Science Foundation 2013). Consequently, women scientists

tend to “leak” from the pipeline of conferred doctorates by pursuing non-academic careers or failing to

achieve tenure and higher ranks (Goulden, Mason, and Frasch 2011). While there is much less research

on faculty life in non-ROI settings, work on liberal arts and other primarily undergraduate institutions

(PUIs) typically emphasizes how faculty do more teaching and have extensive service obligations

(Berheide and Anderson 2012; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2012; Clark 1987; Ruscio 1987). Increasingly,

many PUIs demand an “overwhelming” amount of research productivity alongside teaching and service

(Connelly and Ghodsee 2011: 88). Wolf-Wendel and Ward (2006) found that women at these colleges felt

that professional standards were subjective and were more nervous about tenure than women at research

universities.

Regardless of institution type, navigating academia requires building relationships with other

professors, and positive relationships improve work climates, particularly for under-represented groups

like women in STEM. New faculty members gather information about their departments, campus policies,

and culture from colleagues through both formal relationships like mentoring programs and informal

social ties. Unfortunately, this can be difficult for women in fields where they are scarce (Harley 2008;

Fitting In and Stalling Out

51

Porter 2007; Fogg 2003). Women academics, particularly those in STEM, are more likely to engage in

service activities as a way to mitigate unsupportive work environments (Bird, Wang, and Litt 2004;

Twale and Shannon 1996). In institutions with greater professional emphasis on service activities, women

scientists may be in a better position to develop supportive professional and social networks, leading to

reduced isolation and better perceptions of campus climate. At the same time, increased involvement in

service activities can slow professional advancement to higher ranks (Binder et al. 2010).

This paper presents a case study to investigate whether patterns of collegiality and mentoring

identified through research done at ROIs apply to faculty experiences at PUIs. We focus on faculty

relationships that are part of life as a professor: collegial and mentoring relationships. First, we examine

the literature on collegiality and mentoring, with a focus on how disciplinary and gender differences

affect perceptions of campus climate and the development of informal and formal mentoring

relationships. This literature typically depicts involvement in campus-based service activities as a coping

mechanism for isolated women scientists, even though such activities may hinder professional

advancement. Then, after describing our methodology, we test the assumption that PUI professors

perceive climate differently across gender and discipline. Analysis of interviews with the PUI’s longest-

serving science faculty finds that their experiences mirror many aspects of the published literature on

ROIs, but survey data from a broader faculty group does not. We conclude that these complex patterns

highlight the importance of studying academic life outside of research universities.

Literature Review

Scholars studying ROIs have documented many ways that the work climate in academia is less

friendly to women and how this affects their advancement. Women have worse perceptions of the work

climate than men do, especially in STEM disciplines (Fox 2010; Sanders, Willemsen, and Millar 2009;

Moody 2004; Rosser 2004). Goulden, Mason, and Frasch (2011) cite gender differences in perception of

“chilly” climates to explain why many women scientists forgo academic careers or fail to achieve tenure.

Perceptions of climate may increasingly reflect nuanced, organizational, and interactional forms of gender

discrimination, rather than overt exclusion and discrimination (Garforth and Kerr 2009; Valian 2004). In

this section, we review two factors that have been found to affect woman’s work satisfaction and

advancement: collegiality and service obligations.

Collegiality: Climate, Isolation, and Mentoring

Feelings of inclusion or exclusion are important facets of how faculty perceive campus climate.

Members of the majority group in a workplace are “insiders” who feel comfortable and accepted by their

peers, sentiments linked to greater professional achievement and satisfaction (Moody 2004). When

women are in the minority, they are “outsiders” and may not have access to social networks that provide

shared knowledge and resources (Moody 2004; Rosser 2004). Isolation is reinforced when there is

bonding through informal interactions outside of the workplace, such as going out for drinks after work

(Acker 2006). When women are barred from men’s social networks, they stand out as targets for gender

stereotyping (Rosser 2004). In addition, women academics are more likely to be harmed by workplace

gossip, interpersonal conflict, and other aspects of a lack of collegiality (Hill et al. 2005); conflict with co-

workers is more likely to raise stress and reduce work satisfaction for women professors (Narayanan,

Menon, and Spector 1999).

Mentorship for women faculty is an important mechanism for improving climate and enhancing

women’s professional lives (Monroe et al. 2008; Moody 2004). In an academic setting, mentors are other

professors who fulfill a variety of formal and informal roles that improve collegiality and promote

professional advancement. They share their experience, expertise, and advice about the institution and its

culture, research, teaching and other professional development concerns with less experienced colleagues.

Women professors benefit more than men do from mentoring (Bilimoria et al. 2006; Chesler and Chesler

2002), particularly in STEM disciplines (Eppes, Milanovic, and Sanborn 2010). Mentors provide

guidance that can mediate the effect of limited access to networks (Monroe et al. 2008) and provide

pathways to leadership positions in academia (Brown 2005). Mentorship results in increased rates of

Polymath: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Arts & Sciences

52

promotion and retention, greater job satisfaction and institutional commitment, and reduced work and

family stress (Morrison 2009; Hill et al. 2005; De Janasz and Sullivan 2004; Jacobs and Winslow 2004;

Moody 2004; Nielson, Carlson, and Lankau 2001; Tenenbaum, Crosby, and Gliner 2001; Young and

Perrewe 2000; Baugh and Scandura 1999). Both vocational and psychosocial mentoring encourage

professional advancement (Scandura 1992), although women are more likely to link psychosocial issues

to workplace satisfaction (Hill et al. 2005; Jacobs and Winslow 2004; Gersick, Dutton, and Bartunek

2000). Allen and Eby (2004) found that men and women mentors tend to give distinct types of advice,

with women providing more psychosocial support.

Unfortunately, research also shows that women are disproportionately denied access to mentoring and

other supportive relationships, particularly when they are under-represented in their disciplines (Niemeier

and González 2004; Smith, Smith, and Markham 2000). STEM women continue to be marginalized by

structural segregation, exclusionary practices, and stereotypes about their abilities (Smith, Smith, and

Markham 2000). Because of this, opportunities for formal and informal mentoring can be limited (Ragins

and Cotton 1999). Monroe et al. (2008) found that women valued mentoring from other women as it

provided “both role modeling and concrete illustrations of alternative life choices to the traditional male

model” (223). Women and minorities receive particular benefits from sex-matched mentors (Crawford

and Smith 2005; Smith, Smith, and Markham 2000; Ragins and Cotton 1999), especially in STEM

disciplines (Cozza 2011). Networking in fields where women are scarce is more difficult, and not

surprisingly, STEM men are more likely to have informal research mentoring relationships (Fox 2010).

Women in these disciplines have fewer role models, especially in leadership positions. This is particularly

critical in PUIs, where faculty success has been attributed to a combination of individual performance,

mentoring, and positive leadership (Eppes, Milanovic, and Sanborn 2010). Yet the small size of many

PUIs may make it hard to match mentees to mentors who can advise them about specialized research and

other scholarly activities, much less provide psycho-social support.

Service Obligations: Benefits and Costs

Studies conducted at ROIs have found that women scientists pursue service activities in order to

develop supportive networks on campus, and thereby have increased job satisfaction (Bird, Wang, and

Litt 2004; Twale and Shannon 1996). Consequently, women are more likely than men to do what Bird,

Wang, and Litt (2004) term “institutional housekeeping”—the routine and usually invisible service work

in academia. Data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty reveal a consistent pattern in which

women spend more time on teaching and service, and men spend more time on research; these time

allocations appear to reflect gendered preferences (Winslow 2010). Other studies confirm that women

devote more time to service as well as building bridges around the university (Misra et al. 2011; Pyke

2011). At one university, Misra, Lundquist, and Templer (2012) found that female associate professors do

more service work than men at the same rank do. In fact, many women faculty feel an obligation to serve:

women may feel honored when asked to serve, but guilty to refuse, especially when the service was on

behalf of gender equity (Pyke 2011; Gartrell 2008).

However important “institutional housekeeping” may be to higher education, service is rarely

recognized as much as research and teaching in the promotion process (Bird, Wang, and Litt 2004). In

many institutions, service is expected, but there are few guidelines about what is necessary for promotion;

service is often overlooked and/or undercompensated (Brazeau 2003). As such, service demonstrably

slows attainment of higher ranks, particularly for associate professors (Misra et al. 2011; Brazeau 2003).

The result of these differences is clear in a case study of faculty at the University of New Mexico, where

women were more likely to have held administrative posts but were nonetheless concentrated in lower

ranks (Binder et al. 2010).

In sum, previous research from ROIs indicates that the workplace climate is less supportive for

women, especially in STEM disciplines where there are few women colleagues and mentors. Women

scientists pursue service activities to foster collegial relationships, often at a hazard to their own

professional advancement. Despite these patterns, and even though the Carnegie Foundation (2010)


53

reports that there are nearly five times as many PUIs in the United States as ROIs,1 little research on PUIs

exists, and none to address these concerns. Of course, research on PUIs is hampered by a variety of

methodological problems, including smaller faculty sizes that limit the ability to test hypotheses

quantitatively, and idiosyncratic and diverse professional cultures, missions, and institutional types (e.g.,

public, private, religious, liberal arts, comprehensive) that make comparisons and generalizations

problematic.2 However, because faculty at PUIs have different responsibilities than their colleagues at

ROIs, with greater emphases on both teaching and institutional service, it is reasonable to expect that

faculty at PUIs also have different workplace experiences.

This mixed-methods case study examines patterns in collegiality, mentoring relationships, and

engagement in service activities as explanations of persistent gender differences in professional

advancement among academic scientists. By examining a PUI case in detail, we add complexity to

knowledge gained from studies done at ROIs. Service activities that provide mentoring opportunities and

build collegiality on campus may improve climate but also intensify role strain for faculty who are

evaluated principally on research and teaching expectations. While this strain may not be gender-specific,

it is exacerbated among women professors, who continue to bear a disproportionate burden for family

obligations. Our work contributes to the understanding of academic workplaces by showing that

environments at PUIs may create warmer work climates and reduce the isolation than has been reported at

ROIs, but persistent gender differences in work-life balance continue to reinforce inequalities in

professional advancement.

Methods

The Case

A mixed-method case study allows us to test whether patterns at ROIs apply in a PUI context, and to

explore with greater detail when there are inconsistencies between institution types. A relatively small

population allows the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data from relatively large proportions

of the faculty, and small size increases uniformity across experiences within an institution. We focus our

case study on a highly selective PUI with roughly 6000 students and 325 full-time teaching faculty. The

institution has 10 departments in STEM disciplines, including Biology, Biomedical Engineering,

Chemistry, Civil Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical & Computer Engineering, Mathematics &

Statistics, Mechanical Engineering, Physics, and Technological Studies. At the end of Academic Year

2011-12, professors in STEM disciplines made up 25.79 percent (82) of the 318 full-time teaching faculty

members. Work responsibilities at the PUI are specified in a memorandum of understanding between the

faculty union and administration that indicates standard responsibilities to teach the equivalent of three

courses per semester with additional requirements for advising, mentoring, and course enhancement

(equivalent to the time obligations for one course), and scholarship (equivalent to the time obligations for

one course), as well as an unspecified amount of service. This memorandum refers to the institution’s

promotion document regarding requirements for service, but faculty members have limited official

guidance about how much of their time should be allotted to institutional service because neither

document contains specific guidelines.

As has been found at ROIs, women at the case PUI are underrepresented in higher ranks and take

longer to earn promotion, and these patterns are more pronounced in STEM disciplines. Women faculty,

and particularly STEM women, were small minorities in the faculty hired before 1990, but have since

come to represent 37.80 percent of STEM faculty and a numerical majority in the faculty as a whole.

1 There were 3828 institutions with exclusively, very high, or high undergraduate compositions, compared to 798 institutions

with majority undergraduate, or majority or exclusively graduate compositions 2 PUIs may also suffer from a professional prestige disadvantage, in that the most respected professional academics are typically

scholars located in ROIs. Professional academic norms privilege the type of work done by faculty in ROIs and consequently

devalue the work done by faculty in PUIs, making them less interesting to people who study the academy as a workplace, as well

as those who fund research on the academy.


54

Among faculty who had been at the institution for at least six years by Fall 2011,3 in the STEM

disciplines, 54.1 percent of men and only 41.2 percent of women had achieved the rank of full professor,

and women took an average of 2 years longer to achieve that rank. The variation in rates of promotion

result in a gender imbalance at higher ranks: in STEM disciplines, women constituted only 25.9 percent

of full professors. In comparison, among non-science faculty, women made up 51.1 percent of full

professors. As of Academic Year 2011-12, there were only eight women full professors in STEM

disciplines at the PUI.4

Data Collection and Descriptive Statistics

We studied the faculty at this institution using two data collection strategies to allow quantitative

analysis of widespread patterns and qualitative analysis to help explain those patterns. First, we carried

out focused interviews of 33 full and advanced associate professors in science disciplines in Academic

Year 2010-11. All of the women full professors in STEM and social and behavioral science disciplines5

(n = 10) and a comparable number of men full professors from these disciplines (n = 10 of 30 total) were

asked to participate in interviews; all ten women and six men full professors agreed to be interviewed. An

additional four men full professors from the same departments as those who declined (the person with the

hire date nearest to the decliner) were asked to participate and agreed to do so, resulting in a total of ten

interviews with men full professors. In addition, 27 associate professors in the science and social science

disciplines met minimum eligibility requirements to apply for promotion to the rank of full professor: 12

women and 15 men. At the associate level, all of these women and a comparable number of men were

asked to participate; eight women and four men associates agreed to participate, and there were no

replacements for decliners. This resulted in a 67 percent response rate for women associates, and a 33

percent response rate for men associates. Standard interview questions centered on how climate,

mentoring, and work-life issues affected the promotion process, but the interviewer followed up on other

topic areas that developed through the course of the interview.

In addition, we surveyed the faculty twice. The Promotion Survey was an electronic survey

distributed in Spring 2012 to the population of 303 full-time teaching faculty hired in 2008 or earlier.6

Response rates were high: 72.9 percent responded to the survey (n = 221) and 64.0 percent completed the

survey (n = 194). This survey measured perceptions of the promotion process using questions based on

patterns identified in the interviews described above. Salient variables in the Promotion Survey included:

mentorship, which was measured in questions asking faculty to indicate if they had “formal mentors

assigned by their department,” as well as “informal mentors in their department,” “informal mentors

elsewhere on campus,” or “informal mentors outside [the institution]” (four binary yes/no questions, with

yes coded as 1); isolation, which was measured with questions asking faculty if they “often,”

“sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” felt personal or professional isolation within their departments or at the

institution (four questions),7 and service obligations, which asked if faculty had ever served as

department or program chair, or currently served on department committees, in school committees, in

3 Hired 2004 or earlier (N = 228); this allows for at least 6 years of full-time teaching experience at the PUI, which is the

minimum required for promotion to the rank of associate professor. 4 Patterns for racial/ethnic minority faculty, and especially minority women faculty, suggest even greater discrepancies. However,

because minority representation is so low, this study does not disaggregate the data by race or ethnicity. For the same reason, this

study does not attempt to measure any other type of minority status, although multiple minority statuses likely intersect to

produce greater disadvantage. 5 This was necessary because of the very small number of women at higher ranks in STEM disciplines. 6 This excluded all probationary tenure-track professors because this subpopulation had generally not gone through a promotion

process at the institution. It should be noted, however, that one of the idiosyncratic features of this PUI is that faculty apply for

tenure at the end of their fourth year. Thus, the population of faculty that had been at the institution for more than four years

included only those who had earned tenure. 7 The stem for this matrix question was “How frequently do you feel…” and the items in the matrix included “Personal isolation

within my department,” “Personal isolation at [the Institution],” “Professional isolation within my department,” and “Professional

isolation at [the Institution].” Response choices were coded so that more frequent feelings of isolation were coded higher: often

= 4, sometimes = 3, rarely = 2, and never = 1.


55

college-wide committees, in the faculty senate, or in other types of service (six binary questions, with yes

coded as 1).8 This survey also provided some insight into work-life balance, asking questions about

caregiver obligations to children, chronically ill, disabled, and elderly individuals,9 spouse/partner

education and occupation,10

perceptions of how personal life affects the promotion process,11

and whether

having a spouse living or working in geographic proximity affected the faculty member’s decision to

apply for and accept a position at the institution12

(nine binary questions with yes coded as 1). Means and

standard deviations for variables from the Promotion Survey appear in Table 1a.

The Climate Survey was an electronic survey distributed to the population of 318 full-time, tenure-

track teaching professors in Academic Year 2011-12 that was administered in Fall 2012. In all, 67.9

percent responded (n = 216) and 62.3 percent completed the survey (n = 198). The Climate Survey

contained multiple measures of time use and how faculty perceive climate on campus that were

reproduced from surveys given at two private liberal arts colleges (Berheide and Anderson 2012) and

additional measures reproduced from a survey given at a large, public research-oriented university (Falci

2011). We measured time use by asking respondents to estimate how many hours they spent in an average

week on a series of student-centered, research, and service activities.13

Because professors interact principally with others in their departments, perceptions of one’s own

department are vital to understanding how they perceive campus climate. For this study, questions

measuring department climate were arranged by factor loading into four additive indexes measuring

positive department climate, collegiality, negative climate, and transparency on six-point scales of

agreement with higher values indicating stronger agreement (deliberately lacking a neutral option).

The Collegiality index (alpha = .886, range 5-30) included: “Faculty in my department are

supportive of one another,” “Faculty in my department are sometimes rude to one another”

(Reverse coded), “Faculty in my department enjoy working together,” “Tension among faculty in

my department makes working here uncomfortable” (Reverse coded), and “Faculty in my

department spend time to get to know one another.”

The Positive climate index (alpha = .917, range 8-48) included: “I am treated with respect by

colleagues,” “I feel that my colleagues value my research,” “I feel like I ‘fit’ in my department,”

“Colleagues in my department regularly solicit my opinion about work-related matters (such as

8 We measured this in a single item and a matrix. The single item asked “Have you ever served as department/program chair” and

respondents could select “yes” or “no.” The stem for the matrix question was “Do you currently serve on:” and the items in the

matrix included “department committees,” “school committees,” “[institution]-wide committees,” “faculty senate,” or “other

significant service.” Respondents could select “yes” or “no.” 9 The stem for this matrix was “Do you currently have care-giver obligations to the following:” and items included “children

under age 5,” “children 5-18,” “chronically ill individuals,” “disabled individuals,” and “elderly individuals.” Respondents could

select “yes” or “no.” 10 We asked these in a series of contingent questions. The first was “Are you currently married or in a long-term committed

relationship?” and had response choices of “yes” or “no.” Respondents who selected “yes” were directed to a question that asked

“Does your spouse/partner have a PhD or is he/she currently a PhD candidate?” (Response choices were “yes” or “no”). Because

of the small population, this study did not seek to differentiate heterosexual and homosexual relationships, marital and non-

marital long-term relationships, nor co-residential and non-co-residential relationships. Undoubtedly, these situations create

different stresses and pressures for faculty and are worthy of further study. 11 A single question asked, “Do you think caregiving has slowed your professional advancement?” Respondents could select

“yes” or “no.” 12 Two contingency questions asked respondents “Did its geographic location influence your decision to apply/accept at [the

Institution]?” and response choices were “yes” and “no.” Respondents who selected “yes” were directed to a matrix with the

stem: “Which of the following affected your decision to apply/accept at [the Institution]?” followed by a series of items that

included “spouse/partner in the area.” 13 This question was adapted from Falci 2011. The stem for this question was “On an average week during the semester, how

much time do you typically spend on each of the following activities” and the following matrix included: “Teaching, prepping,

grading,” “Other student-centered activities,” “Research,” “Administrative Duties,” “Service,” and “Practice.” Responses were

indicated in categories (0, less than 1 hour, 1-2 hours, 3-5 hours, 6-10 hours, 11-15, 16-20, 21-30, 31-40, and more than 40).

Response categories were then calculated at the midpoint for analysis.


56

teaching, research, and service),” “I have received positive feedback about my research from

department colleagues,” “Faculty in my department recognize the contributions I make to my

field,” “I would be happy to spend the rest of my career in this department,” and “It would take a

lot to get me to leave this department.”

Table 1a. Descriptive Statistics for Survey Data: Promotion Survey

Mean s.d. N

Gender (1=Women) .56 .50 182

STEM (1) .29 .45 184

Mentorship (1 = Yes)

Has Formal Mentor in Department .18 .39 217

Has Informal Mentor in Department .44 .50 217

Has Informal Mentor at PUI .18 .39 217

Has Informal Mentor outside PUI .24 .43 217

Isolation (4 = Frequently, 1 = Never)

Professional Isolation in Department 2.15 .81 189

Professional Isolation at PUI 2.08 .80 183

Personal Isolation in Department 2.47 .73 172

Personal Isolation at PUI 2.44 .73 173

Service (1 = Yes)

Ever Department Chair .36 .48 188

Department Committee .81 .40 217

School Committee .51 .50 217

College-wide Committee .60 .49 217

Faculty Senate .15 .36 217

Other Committee .13 .34 217

Caregiver Obligations (1 = Yes)

Kids Under 5 .21 .41 177

Kids 5-18 .39 .49 182

Disabled Individual(s) .07 .25 161

Chronically Ill Individuals(s) .06 .24 163

Elderly Individuals .28 .45 173

Spouse/Partner (1 = Yes)

Has PhD/is PhD candidate .27 .44 153

Applied/Spouse in PUI region .52 .50 165

Accepted/Spouse in PUI region .54 .50 160

Caregiving Slowed Professional Adv. (1 =

Yes)

.55 .50 192

The Negative climate index (alpha = .824, range 5-30) included: “I feel excluded from an

informal network in my department,” “I have to work harder than my departmental colleagues to

be perceived as a legitimate scholar,” “I do a great deal of work that is not formally recognized by

my department,” “I encounter unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to interact with

colleagues,” and “I feel isolated in my department.”

The Transparency index (alpha = .924, range 7-42) included: “I feel I can voice my opinions

openly in my department,” “Major decisions are made with adequate input from the faculty,” “It

is clear how resources (e.g., space, funded research assistants, etc.) are allocated,” “Major

decisions are made and implemented with adequate explanation,” “It is clear how teaching


57

assignments are made,” “It is clear how committee assignments are determined,” and “My

department operates in a transparent way.”

Descriptive statistics for Climate Survey variables appear in Table 1b.

Table 1b. Descriptive Statistics for Survey Data: Climate Survey

Mean s.d. N

Gender (1=Women) .57 .50 189

STEM (1) .30 .46 192

Dept. Climate (see text for details)

Collegiality Index (Range 5-30) 21.22 6.03 181

Positive Climate Index (Range 8-48) 24.49 5.87 176

Negative Climate Index (Range 5-30) 14.40 3.90 168

Transparency Index (Range 7-42) 14.26 6.18 179

Time Use in Self-Reported Hours

Teaching, prepping, grading 19.16 9.03 172

Other student-centered activities 7.80 5.43 171

Research 7.69 7.06 172

Administrative duties 5.98 7.83 169

Service 4.82 4.40 169

Practice .84 2.22 163

Total 46.03 17.62 160

Hypotheses

To test how well arguments based on research at ROIs apply to a PUI context, we combine qualitative

and quantitative data to examine three inter-related hypotheses. Our first hypothesis examines differences

in perceptions of collegiality and climate:

H1: Women professors perceive a “chillier” work climate and more isolation than men, and

these differences will be more pronounced in STEM.

Because women have been found to turn to service to mitigate chilly climates, we next turn to how

faculty describe their work responsibilities in our second hypothesis:

H2: Women professors engage in higher levels of service than men, and these differences

will be more pronounced in STEM.

The final hypothesis we examine involves the impact of service on the promotion process, as increased

service activities have been demonstrated to slow professional advancement:

H3. Higher levels of service are associated with slower progress towards promotion, and

this will be more pronounced among women in STEM disciplines.

Together, this study will determine how well patterns observed in ROIs reflect the experience of the

faculty at the case PUI. Where patterns found at the case PUI do not conform to those found at ROIs, our

analysis will turn to possible explanations for institutional differences.

Findings

Our findings address the three main hypotheses noted above. We first explore how professors

perceive climate and isolation on campus; we examine this with interview data and then with survey data.

We repeat this process in the analysis of service activities, as we suggest that women science faculty use

service opportunities to form mentoring relationships outside of their own departments as a means of

reducing isolation. We then turn to how service obligations create competing work roles for women

scientists and may help explain the underrepresentation of women at higher ranks. We conclude with an

alternative explanation for gender differences in promotion involving non-work obligations that place

particular burdens on women in STEM disciplines.


58

Collegiality, Climate, and Mentoring

Collegial relationships were important to the professors interviewed. For the most part, interviewees

reported that they formed friendships in their own departments or on service committees. Professors

expressed happiness with being able to share and collaborate with professors within and outside their

departments who do similar work, for example, sharing teaching materials. Many went out of their way to

find and cultivate friendships and other collegial relationships because they were so valuable.

For those who reported that they were able to make collegial connections, many mentioned

relationships that involved activities more social than professional. In the past, men professors cited a

tradition of having lunch together. One associate professor told a story about how he and his colleagues

would go to lunch at a local restaurant three days a week and just talk. “I had a lot of really great

luncheon companions, okay? We used to go up to [restaurant]... and sit there for over an hour and a half

or something.” This tradition seems to have fallen by the wayside, along with the similar practice

mentioned by another man of gathering in the student center to eat lunch. The men professors did not

seem to use this time for building professional relationships, but rather making friendships. Though some

women also talked about sharing meals occasionally, only men expressed nostalgia for regularly eating

together in years past. This could mean that women used to be excluded from men’s bonding activities—

indicating the past existence of an “old boy’s network.” One woman full professor reported that she

never felt comfortable enough to join senior faculty in her department for lunch, in order to receive

mentorship and advice: “You look up to the senior faculty, but you don’t go to their office and take them

out to lunch. Coming with this kind of attitude prevented me from bouncing around and getting the

feedback that I could have [had].”

Even so, not having time to make friends was a recurring theme for many women professors, and one

that men did not echo. Interviews identified more personal and professional isolation among women

respondents. One woman full professor expressed sadness due to her perceived academic isolation:

[I feel] really alone. But [...] I guess that’s the one thing that I think is a problem here. I feel like

there are so many people on campus who I have commonality with my research or my ideas and I

don’t connect with them. And I honestly have to say it’s because I have no time.

These time pressures were echoed by a woman associate professor who said that because she had a very

long commute to and from campus (related to family obligations), she was unable to gather with other

professors. “I just haven’t spent the time and have the opportunity to meet as many people off campus

because of the commute.” Another woman full professor explained that because of the way she had

structured her life, she simply had no time to form relationships with other professors:

I think that if there are opportunities to do that, I am not taking advantage of them. That is, I

would say, my main regret about how I have things structured … is that it limits my ability to

make both social and professional contacts with other people. You know, I’m really … booked up

when I’m here and then I have – I mean, I really have myself totally boxed in.

Many women interviewees emphasized the time pressures they felt, and spoke about how this affected

their relationships on campus. In contrast, the men interviewed did not connect time pressures with

collegiality or isolation. These patterns among the faculty in the higher ranks and with a longer history at

the PUI echo gendered patterns found in published research conducted in ROIs.

To determine how widespread these sentiments were, we measured them with survey questions asked

of the entire faculty. Surprisingly, the survey data contradicted the expected findings. Women scientists

were not significantly different than men in terms of their scores on any of the four indexes used to

measure department climate (collegiality, positive climate, negative climate, and transparency) (see Table

2). Although not statistically significant, women in STEM disciplines actually rated their departments

more collegial and transparent than STEM men. Contrary to expectations and although more senior


59

faculty related gendered experiences in interviews, how faculty perceive their department climates did not

vary by gender or discipline at the PUI.

Table 2. Department Climate Index Means

a. STEM disciplines only

Men Women Total N

Collegiality Index 19.83 20.93 20.35 57

Positive Climate Index 23.74 24.88 24.29 52

Negative Climate Index 13.88 14.33 14.10 49

Transparency Index 14.31 15.04 14.65 54

b. Institution, all disciplines

Men Women Total N

Collegiality Index 21.18 21.19 21.19 177

Positive Climate Index 24.59 24.39 24.48 172

Negative Climate Index 14.67 14.22 14.41 164

Transparency Index 13.29 15.03 14.26 175

*p<.05, ^p<.10

As with departmental climate and again in contrast to published findings from ROIs, data from the

Promotion Survey show that women in STEM disciplines actually report lower levels of personal and

professional isolation than men in these fields and at the PUI overall (Table 3). Statistically, men and

women in STEM disciplines reported no differences in terms of personal or professional isolation, in their

departments or at the institution. Although women in the faculty overall reported significantly higher

levels of professional and personal isolation in their departments and campus-wide, these patterns do not

exist for STEM faculty. These data suggest that isolation in science departments may actually be more

favorable for women faculty than in other disciplines across campus.

Table 3. Percentage of Faculty Indicating that They Feel “Often Isolated”


Men Women Total N

Professionally, in department 30.8 19.2 25.0 52

Professionally, at the PUI 33.3 16.0 25.0 52

Personally, in department 12.5 8.7 10.6 47

Personally, at the PUI 11.5 8.7 10.2 49


Men Women Total N

Professionally, in department 19.2 32.0 26.4 178

Professionally, at the PUI^ 22.4 30.9 25.8 173

Personally, in department^ 9.6 17.4 13.9 165

Personally, at the PUI* 10.8 15.2 13.3 166

*p<.05, ^p<.10

The unexpected equitable perceptions of climate and isolation may be explained by the existence of

mentors, who have been found to reduce feelings of isolation and thereby improve perceptions of work

climates. In interviews, professors reported that formal mentoring programs—when present and

operational—focused on teaching and institutional culture, since the majority of professors who receive


60

mentorship are new, either to the PUI or to teaching altogether. Some professors noted the lack of

research mentorship at the PUI—not a surprise since most departments are relatively small and seek to

maximize diversity of sub-disciplinary expertise. Professors who came to the PUI with prior teaching

experience were less likely to say they needed or wanted mentorship when they first arrived. For novice

professors, however, mentorship seemed to prove very valuable. For example, a full professor recalled his

mentor showing him how to do classroom demonstrations that he still uses today.

Informal mentoring seems to be important for supporting faculty as they seek tenure and promotion.

Many professors claimed that their departments were supportive and felt that they could approach any of

their department colleagues with questions. As a woman full professor said, “I never had official

mentoring, but I never felt like I couldn’t get the answers when I went and looked for them.” This was a

pattern among people who reported having informal mentors: they sought out colleagues to answer

questions. Informal mentorship grew out of such collegial interactions, and many professors traced

instances of informal mentorship back to friendships and vice versa. Given gender differences in the

ability to form friendships within departments, women had fewer alternatives for such informal

mentoring.

Women interviewees also talked about senior women being sought out by junior women in their

departments. Junior women looked for advice about balancing work and family life as well as navigating

gender-related concerns within the department. These junior women assumed that the senior women were

the best people to talk to about these issues. Despite the fact that such requests might burden senior

women, they did not report that they felt being an informal mentor to junior women faculty was a burden.

Importantly, in the Promotion Survey, women and men reported distinct types of mentors, and these

varied considerably by discipline. Few faculty in all disciplines (18 percent) reported having formal

mentors (see Table 1a), although men in STEM disciplines were less likely to report formal mentors than

their women colleagues (11.1 percent compared to 23.1 percent). In contrast, in STEM disciplines and

campus-wide, most men reported having informal mentors within their departments (51.9 percent and

58.8 percent, respectively), while women, and especially women in STEM, were less likely to report

having informal mentors within their departments (38.5 percent in STEM, 50.0 percent campus-wide). At

the same time, women and especially women in STEM, were more likely than men to have found

informal mentors outside of their departments (30.8 percent of STEM women and 21.6 percent of all

women, compared to 18.5 percent of STEM men and 15.0 percent of all men). Given the greater reported

frequency of having informal mentors outside of their departments and across campus, STEM women

were in a position to reduce feelings of isolation, even if they were the only women within any single

department.

Service Obligations

The lack of isolation and greater ability for women to find mentors outside of their departments may

reflect women’s greater involvement in some types of service activities, which have been shown at ROIs

to be a strategy for coping with gender isolation. Interviews clearly indicated the advantage of building

ties with other faculty as a means for improving work experiences. Faculty reported that they liked to

collaborate with others who do similar work and who had similar approaches to the faculty experience.

One woman full professor called this a “Circle of Love” that she and her colleagues had created:

We’re the same kind of professors. We try to do everything and we want to move the institution

forward and we care about our colleagues…..We’re the kind of colleagues we want to have. We

want our colleagues coming up to be like us and not to be like certain other ones.

To this woman, it was important that her group of colleagues had similar approaches to scholarship, but

even more important was their commitment to the institution. All of the people in the “Circle of Love”

were deeply engaged with service activities and were well known for being responsible “team players” on

committees. When faculty did not have these sorts of connections in their own departments, they sought


61

them elsewhere on campus. For example, another woman full professor related that the friendships she

had made on campus “all happened through service” rather than through teaching or research.

At the same time, professors in interviews reported that they feel service is not valued. Many

interviewees pointed out that service positions can be time consuming and take time from teaching and

scholarship. One woman full professor explained, “Everybody wants everybody to do service, but they

don’t want to give many [people] credit for doing service, or how time-consuming it can be.” Professors

who had served as chairs were particularly concerned about the impact of service work and acting as

department chair on their research and scholarly pursuits. One associate professor complained that, as a

chair, she had remained engaged in scholarship (presenting at conferences, getting student-related grants),

even if she did not publish much in her discipline. “There’s now a gap in my publication record in terms

of papers,” she said, and so she had gotten signals from colleagues that she should not apply for

promotion: “It really didn’t really matter, apparently, to be chair.”

Women in interviews were more likely than men to report feeling coerced to serve as chair and to

perform more service work. As one put it, “I think that women tend to, particularly in academia, they tend

to get moved into [service] roles because the guys want to just go and do the science.” In fields where

there are few women, they can also be burdened with requests to serve on committees. In fact, several

women associate professors said that they felt like “token women” on all-men committees, and they did

more service than their peers who were men.

The Promotion Survey data demonstrates that both men and women participate broadly in service at

the PUI, although STEM women are most likely to report participation in college-wide committees. The

vast majority of all faculty (94.3 percent) report doing some kind of service. However, the type of service

that faculty choose varied by gender and discipline. Notably, a full 84.6 percent of STEM women

reported involvement in college-wide committees, compared to 77.8 percent of STEM men and only 69.2

percent of faculty campus-wide.14

Survey data also provided no significant differences between genders

or disciplines when comparing self-reported time use. Previous research at ROIs suggested that women

and men professors spend their time differently, with women devoting more time to service and men to

research. This pattern was somewhat reflected in self-reported time use, in that STEM women report 5.59

hours of service work on an average week, in comparison with 4.89 hours among STEM men and 4.84

hours campus-wide (Table 4). These data provide some evidence that STEM women are

disproportionately engaged in the type of service that would facilitate the formation of social ties across

campus.

Table 4. Mean Self-Reported Time Use in Average Week (in Hours)


Men Women Total N

Teaching, prepping, grading 18.18 18.94 18.30 52

Other student-centered activities 8.05 6.71 7.43 52

Research 6.93 8.67 7.73 52

Administrative duties 6.36 3.83 5.19 52

Service 4.89 5.59 5.21 51

Practice .15 .25 .19 49

Total 45.09 43.23 44.26 49

14 The faculty also report few differences by gender or discipline in terms of experiencing pressure to do unwanted service from

department chairs, department colleagues, deans, or colleagues and other administrators, suggesting that these gendered patterns

may reflect preferences rather than coercion.


62


Men Women Total N

Teaching, prepping, grading 18.74 19.44 19.13 170

Other student-centered activities 7.72 7.93 7.84 169

Research 7.83 7.34 7.56 170

Administrative duties 6.18 5.49 5.79 167

Service 4.33 5.28 4.84 167

Practice .71 .87 .80 161

Total 44.78 46.35 45.67 158

*p<.05, ^p<.10

At the same time and in contrast to expected findings, time use data fail to confirm previous research

about both how men and women faculty spend their time. Notably, while STEM women estimate they

work slightly fewer hours on an average work week than STEM men (43.23 and 45.09 hours,

respectively), STEM women report slightly more time dedicated to both teaching and research than their

men colleagues (Table 4). Likewise, if administrative and service activities are combined, STEM men

estimate that they do an average of 1.83 hours more service each week, which almost exactly corresponds

to the greater total time that STEM men report in an average work week (1.86 hours). These findings

render our third hypothesis irrelevant; because men engage in equal or more service, service activities

cannot explain why women are under-represented at higher ranks and take longer to achieve those ranks.

Role Strain and Work-Life Balance

Because persistent differences in professional advancement could not be explained by hostile

climates, isolation, or differential engagement in service, we considered how interviewees explained their

own experiences with the promotion process to identify a causal mechanism. Women were more likely to

cite additional problems with balancing work with responsibilities outside of work. Although changing,

traditional gender roles have loaded care-giving responsibilities (usually to dependent children but

increasingly for aging parents or for both dependent children and aging parents) on women more than

men. Family responsibilities create greater conflict over a woman professor’s scarce time; this conflict

may well explain slower or stalled professional advancement. These conflicts will be exacerbated among

faculty with more caregiving obligations and among those who do not have a spouse or partner who can

shoulder primary caregiving responsibilities.

Interviews with senior science faculty underscore the difficulty of balancing work and family

obligations. Both men and women interviewed had significant caregiver obligations, with women more

likely to have a primary role. Of the men who were primary caregivers, only two did not share this role

with a spouse. More caregiving responsibilities earlier in their careers may pose a greater barrier to

women than to men, as they attempt to advance through the ranks of an academic career while balancing

their home lives. As one woman associate professor put it, “I can do everything but not at the same time.”

Having children frequently coincides with the decision and ability to apply for promotion, and for many

women their family obligations hinder successfully making these steps in their academic careers at the

same rate as their counterparts who are men. As one woman full professor reported with regard to the

promotion process,

From my own personal experience, it is falling at a time in the life and family cycle that is just

really a hard time for women …everything happens at once like, you have the new job, you’re

buying a house, you’re having children, you’re prepping for your courses, you’re publishing; it’s

all at the same time.

When faced with similar time constraints, more men reported that in balancing home and work life,

academia took precedence, resulting in secondary rather than primary caregiver roles, even when they


63

recognized that family responsibilities had—as one man full professor put it—“slowed [them] down a

little bit.” Indeed, men with wives and children expressed more recognition of a gender imbalance in

caregiving, and the potential impact this added responsibility has on women’s careers. Despite this

recognition, men reported making the choice, either consciously or not, to focus more on their academic

careers, relying on their wives or other family members to serve as primary caregivers. One associate

professor reported that others did not recognize women’s central roles at home, although these roles

deeply impact and can potentially limit women’s careers. As he explained, “Of course, we have an awful

lot of women [professors] and they always have family responsibilities. The men teachers don’t really

recognize them as a serious obstacle unless they really get out of hand.”

Women were more likely than men to say that their personal lives had influenced their professional

trajectories. Feeling divided between work life and home life is a common sentiment reported by women

professors at both the associate and full ranks. Women commonly reported that home obligations had

taken away from the quality of their research and teaching. Nonetheless, these women also reported that

they did not regret the sacrifices they made, saying things like this statement from a full professor:

I missed a lot of professional opportunities and a lot of research opportunities but that’s what I

chose, you know[…] I didn’t have to have [#] children. But that’s what I chose to do […] But I

would say I sacrificed a good bit professionally in terms of growth and success. But I happily

sacrificed that, you know.

As a result of imbalances at work and at home, women commonly reported experiencing stress and even

guilt in the instances in which they did put their work before their families. Mentions of balance often

coincided with comments about stress and guilt over not being able to give full attention to either home or

work responsibilities, and a feeling of being divided between the two. One woman associate professor

expressed regret and guilt for neglecting family obligations, such as failing to stay home with a sick child,

in order to work. Other women professors saw the conflict between their responsibilities. One woman full

professor stated, “I think what I feel is the tension between my two roles. It’s really hard and there’s no

perfect solution to it and it’s constantly changing.” The pressure put on women in academic careers to be

able to split their focus evenly and without dropping the ball in either sphere is an added burden that falls

unevenly on them. This expectation is in itself a barrier to women’s success in academia, in that women

are pressured to fill more aspects of the primary caregiver role, despite and in addition to the need to work

towards their career aspirations. One woman full professor summed it up when she said, “I really think

that the issue is that the psychological burden and the time burden is not still shared equally by both

parents.”

The Promotion Survey data largely confirms the concerns voiced in interviews about how work-life

balance affected professional advancement. Gender differences are strongest and most demanding for

STEM women when considering family obligations. Across the institution, women were more likely than

men to have caregiver obligations to any dependent, including minor children or elderly, chronically ill,

or disabled individuals (see Table 5). These patterns are much stronger in STEM disciplines, where

significantly more women than men reported caregiver obligations to children under the age of five,

children between the ages of 5 and 18, as well as elderly, disabled, and chronically ill individuals. Three-

quarters of women in STEM disciplines and nearly two-thirds of women faculty said they had obligations

to some dependent, in comparison with a minority of men (37.5 percent in STEM disciplines and 37.9

percent at the PUI overall).

Work-life balance is a particular problem for women in STEM disciplines because they are

significantly more likely to be married or otherwise partnered with another scientist who faces similar

conflicts between work and family obligations. In STEM disciplines, 61.9 percent of women and only

26.9 percent of men reported that they have spouses/partners with PhDs or who are PhD candidates

(compared to 28.0 percent of women and 26.8 percent of men across campus). Likewise, more women in

the sciences also indicated that their spouses affected their decision to apply to and accept their current

faculty positions at the PUI. While 53.0 percent of the faculty and 55.6 percent of STEM men indicated


64

that they applied to the PUI at least in part because they had a partner/spouse living or working nearby,

this percentage rises to 71.4 percent among STEM women. The same proportion of women in STEM

disciplines (71.4 percent) indicated that having a spouse/partner living or working in the area affected

their decision to accept their current position (in comparison with 55.6 percent of STEM men).

Table 5. Percentage of faculty indicating that they had caregiver obligations


Men Women Total N

Any dependent* 37.5 75.0 54.5 44

Any child (ages 0-18)* 40.0 72.7 55.3 47

Child/ren under age 5^^ 11.5 30.4 20.4 49

Child/ren age 5-18* 38.5 66.7 52.0 50

Elderly* 7.7 36.4 20.8 48

Chronically ill or disabled* 4.2 30.0 15.9 44


Men Women Total N

Any dependent* 37.9 66.3 53.4 146

Any child (ages 0-18) 40.0 46.6 43.7 158

Child/ren under age 5^ 15.3 26.9 21.8 165

Child/ren age 5-18 38.2 39.1 38.7 168

Elderly* 11.3 40.0 27.3 161

Chronically ill or disabled* 7.5 38.8 24.5 147

*p<.05, ^p<.10, ^^p=.10

Because STEM women have different spouse/partner relationships as well as greater caregiving

responsibilities, it is not surprising that women were significantly more likely to report that their family

obligations had conflicted with work. In fact, a full 76 percent of women in STEM disciplines and 65

percent of women campus wide indicated that their caregiver obligations had “interfered with their

professional advancement,” in comparison with 46 percent and 42 percent of men in the same groups.

Conclusion

Our case study suggests that PUIs may offer a less “chilly” climate for women scientists than ROIs,

in part because of greater opportunities to form collegial and mentoring relationships outside of the

department through service activities, but neither climate nor service are sufficient explanations for

gender differences in the promotion process. Women faculty at the case PUI, including women in STEM,

are not statistically different from men when evaluating many aspects of department climate, or when

reporting levels of personal or professional isolation. We suggest that the ability of women to build

mentoring relationships through their greater involvement in campus-wide service work mitigates

negative climates and isolation. At the same time, we find that involvement in service work cannot fully

explain why women lag behind men in achieving promotion. While not necessarily performing more

service overall, women do report greater concerns about how service activities affect their paths to

promotion. Both men and women faculty acknowledge that non-work issues are more likely to hamper

women’s advancement. We attribute greater causal effect to the precarious balancing act between work

and non-work obligations, a stressful situation that seems just as problematic and gendered in the PUI

context as at ROIs. Women professors, especially those in STEM disciplines, are more likely to be

juggling dual-academic career relationships and more care-giving responsibilities, which frequently

coincide with optimal promotion timelines. Not surprisingly, even at a PUI with a relatively friendly

climate, women scientists are more likely to “stall” at the lower ranks.


65

These findings have three implications for the study of academia as a gendered workplace. First and

most importantly, research on the work environment based in research universities may not accurately

reflect conditions at the majority of institutions of higher education in the United States. There is a need

for comparative research that investigates the working conditions for faculty—men and women, scientist

and non-scientist—at colleges and other PUIs. To do so, scholars of higher education must develop

methodological solutions for comparing across small and diverse institutions. Second, our findings

corroborate earlier research that finds women—and especially women scientists—are more likely than

men to seek mentorship outside of their departments, a process facilitated by campus-wide service work.

If time-consuming service work is penalized in the promotion process, institutions must re-consider how

these activities are evaluated for professional advancement. The undervaluation of service work is not

unique to women, scientists, or the PUI context, but professors at PUIs expect to (and may actually)

perform more service than their colleagues at ROIs and should receive fair recognition for this work.

Third, gender differences in academia are influenced by persistent inequalities in the private sphere,

where women continue to shoulder greater caregiving responsibilities. Balancing work and non-work

roles may be particularly tricky for women scientists, who are more likely than STEM men and faculty in

general to have to share home obligations with a spouse or partner who is also an academic scientist. As

with the undervaluation of service, the PUI environment does not necessarily offer a haven for women

scientists searching for balance between home and work life. In fact, because of the increased

expectations for service and teaching, PUIs may actually offer women scientists even less opportunity to

reduce work-life conflict.

We acknowledge several limitations to our study that prevent us from making stronger statements

about the PUI faculty experience. While the data are representative of the faculty at this institution,

several characteristics make the case unlike other PUIs. Among other things, the case institution has a

relatively strong faculty governance structure, a unionized faculty, greater numbers of women professors

than the “pipeline” of PhDs in most STEM disciplines, and a location that can better accommodate dual-

career scientific couples than institutions that are more isolated. These differences, as well as the small

size of the faculty and the highly selective nature of the institution, undoubtedly affect levels of

collegiality, mentoring, work-life balance, and thus, professional advancement. Small sample and sub-

sample sizes also make it more difficult to establish statistically significant differences—a methodological

problem when studying any small institution.

Even so, our findings are robust enough to merit further research on patterns of climate, mentoring,

service, and work-life balance in academia. Our study strongly suggests that assumptions about gender

and disciplinary differences in academic institutions may not hold outside of the research institutions

where these patterns were first identified. Most critically, the case institution’s culture provides insight

into persistent gender inequalities in academia absent of a gender-hostile climate. Our study indicates that

the causal mechanism to explain gender inequalities varies by institutional context; specifically, we

suggest that non-work demands on faculty women become more important in explaining professional

advancement outcomes in institutions with more equitable perceptions of climate, isolation, and service

burdens.

To this end, scholars should not assume that negative climate and isolation (and service work

undertaken to reduce these) are the primary barriers to professional advancement for women professors,

including in STEM. Instead, future research should seek to determine what elements of campus cultures

promote more (and less) equitable and integrated work environments. It will be important to know if the

patterns we observed are representative of other PUIs, or merely specific to the case. Similar case studies

and comparative research on multiple PUIs could be compared to the larger body of work on ROIs to

determine if there are robust differences across institution type. Finally, workplace equity studies must

target gender differences in non-work obligations, as we find these to be critical to explaining persistent

performance inequalities between men and women. Building on this body of research will inform policy

solutions that will benefit the entire academic workforce, not just the minority who work at research

universities.


66

REFERENCES

Acker, Joan. 2006. "Inequality Regimes Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations." Gender & Society

20(4):441-464.

Allen, Tammy D. and Lillian T. Eby. 2004. "Factors Related to Mentor Reports of Mentoring Functions

Provided: Gender and Relational Characteristics." Sex Roles 50(1-2):129-139.

Baugh, S. G. and Terri A. Scandura. 1999. "The Effect of Multiple Mentors on Protégé Attitudes Toward

the Work Setting." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 14(4):503-521.

Berheide, Catherine White and Cay Anderson-Hanley. 2012. "Doing It All: The Effect of Gender, Rank,

and Department Climate on Work-Family Conflict for Faculty at Liberal Arts Colleges." Advances in

Gender Research 16: 165-188.

Bilimoria, Diana, Susan R. Perry, Xiangfen Liang, Eleanor P. Stoller, Patricia Higgins and Cyrus Taylor.

2006. "How do Female and Male Faculty Members Construct Job Satisfaction? The Roles of

Perceived Institutional Leadership and Mentoring and their Mediating Processes." The Journal of

Technology Transfer 31(3):355-365.

Binder, Melissa, Kate Krause, Janie Chermak, Jennifer Thacher and Julia Gilroy. 2010. "Same Work,

Different Pay? Evidence from a US Public University." Feminist Economics 16(4):105-135.

Bird, Sharon, Yong Wang and Jacquelyn S. Litt. 2004. "Creating Status of Women Reports: Institutional

Housekeeping as "Women's Work"." NWSA Journal 16(1):194-206.

Brazeau, Gayle A. 2003. "Revisiting Faculty Service roles—Is “Faculty Service” a Victim of the Middle

Child Syndrome." American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 67(3):1-6.

Brown, Terri M. 2005. "Mentorship and the Female College President." Sex Roles 52(9-10):659-666.

Carnegie Foundation. 2010. "Carnegie Classifications: Summary Tables." Retrieved October/17, 2013.

(http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/summary/enrollment_profile.php).

Chesler, Naomi C. and Mark A. Chesler. 2002. "Gender‐Informed Mentoring Strategies for Women

Engineering Scholars: On Establishing a Caring Community." Journal of Engineering Education

91(1):49-55.

Clark, Burton R. 1987. The Academic Life. Small Worlds, Different Worlds. A Carnegie Foundation

Special Report. ERIC.

Connelly, Rachel and Kristen Ghodsee. 2011. Professor Mommy: Finding Work-Family Balance in

Academia. Rowman & Littlefield.

Cozza, Michela. 2011. "Bridging Gender Gaps, Networking in Computer Science." Gender, Technology

and Development 15(2):319-337.

Crawford, Kijana and Danielle Smith. 2005. "The We and the Us Mentoring African American Women."

Journal of Black Studies 36(1):52-67.

De Janasz, Suzanne C. and Sherry E. Sullivan. 2004. "Multiple Mentoring in Academe: Developing the

Professorial Network." Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(2):263-283.

Eppes, Tom, Ivana Milanovic and Jennifer Sanborn. 2010. "Faculty Gender Balance: Best Practices for

Undergraduate Institutions." International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 2(3).

Falci, Christina. 2011. "Faculty Networks and Workload Study." [Survey Questionnaire]. University of

Nebraska-Lincoln.

Finkelstein, Martin J., Robert K. Seal and Jack H. Schuster. 1998. The New Academic Generation: A

Profession in Transformation. JHU Press.

Fogg, Piper. 2003. "So Many Committees, So Little Time." Chronicle of Higher Education 50(17):A14.

Fox, Mary F. 2010. "Women and Men Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering: Social-

Organizational Indicators and Implications." American Behavioral Scientist 53(7):997-1012.

Garforth, Lisa and Anne Kerr. 2009. "Women and Science: What's the Problem?" Social Politics:

International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(3):379-403.

Gartrell, Nanette. 2008. My Answer is No… if That’s Okay with You.New York: Free Press.

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/summary/enrollment_profile.php


67

Gersick, Connie J., Jane E. Dutton and Jean M. Bartunek. 2000. "Learning from Academia: The

Importance of Relationships in Professional Life." Academy of Management Journal 43(6):1026-

1044.

Goulden, Marc, Mary A. Mason and Karie Frasch. 2011. "Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline." The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 638(1):141-162.

Harley, Debra A. 2008. "Maids of Academe: African American Women Faculty at Predominately White

Institutions." Journal of African American Studies 12(1):19-36.

Hayes, William. 2004. So You Want to be a Principal? R&L Education.

Hill, Nicole R., Tracy Leinbaugh, Carla Bradley and Richard Hazler. 2005. "Female Counselor

Educators: Encouraging and Discouraging Factors in Academia." Journal of Counseling &

Development 83(3):374-380.

Jacobs, Jerry A. and Sarah E. Winslow. 2004. "The Academic Life Course, Time Pressures and Gender

Inequality." Community, Work & Family 7(2):143-161.

Misra, Joya, Jennifer H. Lundquist, Elissa Holmes and Stephanie Agiomavritis. 2011. "The Ivory Ceiling

of Service Work." Academe 97(1):22-26.

Misra, Joya, Jennifer H. Lundquist and Abby Templer. 2012. "Gender, Work Time, and Care

Responsibilities among Faculty." 27(2):300-323.

Monroe, Kristen, Saba Ozyurt, Ted Wrigley and Amy Alexander. 2008. "Gender Equality in Academia:

Bad News from the Trenches, and some Possible Solutions." Perspectives on Politics 6(2):215-233.

Moody, JoAnn. 2004. Faculty Diversity: Problems and Solutions. Routledge.

Morrison, Rachel L. 2009. "Are Women Tending and Befriending in the Workplace? Gender Differences

in the Relationship between Workplace Friendships and Organizational Outcomes." Sex Roles 60(1-

2):1-13.

Narayanan, Lakshmi, Shanker Menon and Paul E. Spector. 1999. "Stress in the Workplace: A

Comparison of Gender and Occupations." Journal of Organizational Behavior.

National Science Foundation. 2013. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and

Engineering. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics Directorate for Social,

Behavioral and Economic Sciences.

Neumann, Anna. 2009. Professing to Learn: Creating Tenured Lives and Careers in the American

Research University. JHU Press.

Nielson, Troy R., Dawn S. Carlson and Melenie J. Lankau. 2001. "The Supportive Mentor as a Means of

Reducing Work–Family Conflict." Journal of Vocational Behavior 59(3):364-381.

Niemeier, Debbie A. and Cristina González. 2004. "Breaking into the Guildmasters' Club: What we

Know about Women Science and Engineering Department Chairs at AAU Universities." NWSA

Journal 16(1):157-171.

Porter, Stephen R. 2007. "A Closer Look at Faculty Service: What Affects Participation on Committees?"

The Journal of Higher Education 78(5):523-541.

Pyke, Karen. 2011. "Service and Gender Inequity among Faculty." PS: Political Science and Politics

44(1):85.

Ragins, Belle R. and John L. Cotton. 1999. "Mentor Functions and Outcomes: A Comparison of Men and

Women in Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships." Journal of Applied Psychology 84(4):529.

Rosser, Sue V. 2004. The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientist and the Struggle to Succeed.

Routledge.

Ruscio, Kenneth P. 1987. "The Distinctive Scholarship of the Selective Liberal Arts College." The

Journal of Higher Education:205-222.

Sanders, Karin, Tineke M. Willemsen and Carla C. Millar. 2009. "Views from Above the Glass Ceiling:

Does the Academic Environment Influence Women Professors’ Careers and Experiences?" Sex Roles

60(5-6):301-312.

Scandura, Terri A. 1992. "Mentorship and Career Mobility: An Empirical Investigation." Journal of

Organizational Behavior 13(2):169-174.


68

Smith, Janice W., Wanda J. Smith and Steven E. Markham. 2000. "Diversity Issues in Mentoring

Academic Faculty." Journal of Career Development 26(4):251-262.

Tenenbaum, Harriet R., Faye J. Crosby and Melissa D. Gliner. 2001. "Mentoring Relationships in

Graduate School." Journal of Vocational Behavior 59(3):326-341.

Tierney, William G. and Estele M. Bensimon. 1996. Promotion and Tenure: Community and

Socialization in Academe. SUNY Press.

Twale, Darla J. and David M. Shannon. 1996. "Professional Service Involvement of Leadership Faculty:

An Assessment of Gender, Role, and Satisfaction." Sex Roles 34(1-2):117-126.

Valian, Virginia. 2004. "Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia."

NWSA Journal 16(1):207-220.

Ward, Kelly and Lisa Wolf-Wendel. 2012. Academic Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and

Family. Rutgers University Press.

Winslow, Sarah. 2010. "Gender Inequality and Time Allocations among Academic Faculty." Gender &

Society 24(6):769-793.

Wolf-Wendel, Lisa E. and Kelly Ward. 2006. "Academic Life and Motherhood: Variations by

Institutional Type." Higher Education 52(3):487-521.

Young, Angela M. and Pamela L. Perrewe. 2000. "What did You Expect? an Examination of Career-

Related Support and Social Support among Mentors and Protégés." Journal of Management

26(4):611-632.

Documents

Diane Bates and Elizabeth Borland