Studying the transition between Associate and Full Professor for STEM Faculty: Preliminary Results*

Dana M. BrittonProfessor of Sociology

Kansas State University

Presented at the Second Big 12 Conference on Faculty

Diversity, Lawrence, Kansas, April 25-26, 2010

Funding note *This research is funded a National Science

Foundation Award: ADVANCE Partnerships for Adaptation,

Implementation, and Dissemination (PAID) Award: PROMOTE - Improving the promotion to full

processes at western public universities, Principal investigators Kimberly A. Sullivan, Ann Austin, Beth A. Montelone, Dana M. Britton, Cynthia Zoski. NSF

Award #: HRD-0820273. The views in this presentation are those of the

author alone.

Gendering the academy

Background and context Gendering through policy – tenure and

promotion documents Barriers to promotion for all faculty Gendered barriers – work/family Preliminary implications

Distribution of women faculty by discipline

Phd 96-05 Assistant Associate Professor AllChemistry 32.4% 11.2% 12.8% 22.7% 18.7%Math 28.7% 1.9% 10.3% 21.6% 15.8%Computer Science 21.2% 1.2% 9.6% 10.9% 8.0%Physics 14.3% -2.5% 0.9% 8.2% 5.2%Biology 46.3% 11.3% 16.3% 28.9% 21.9%Chemical Engineering 23.7% -0.5% 6.1% 16.4% 11.1%Civil Engineering 22.0% -2.7% 7.5% 14.9% 9.0%Electrical Engineering 12.3% -3.2% -0.2% 6.6% 2.8%Mechanical Engineering 8.4% -9.6% -3.5% 4.0% -0.4%Economics 30.2% -0.6% 9.9% 21.5% 13.9%Political Science 38.9% 1.9% 9.6% 21.3% 12.8%Sociology 60.8% 4.7% 15.1% 32.6% 21.0%Psychology 67.8% 19.3% 23.9% 38.3% 30.5%

Underrepresented by 15+ percentage pointsOverrepresented

Source: Adapted from Nelson, 2007

Gaps between % PhDs by rank

Possible barriers

The pipeline explanation – but this is not sufficient

Promotion to full is voluntary, not on a time clock

Tenure and promotion policies vague Work/family issues Gendered cultures

Methodology

Originally intended to be an interview study of 80 men and women STEM faculty at seven universities

Document analysis, T&P documents in STEM departments (N=12)

A BAssociate Full

1 In rank for 3 to 6 years post tenure Promoted within 6 years or fewer2 In rank for 7+ years post tenure Promoted after 7 years or more

N = 10 men and 10 women SEM faculty per cell, total = 80

SAMPLE STATISTICS N 130

Campuses 10Sex distribution

Men 57 44%Women 73 56%

Sample cell distributionAssociate 3-6 32 25%Associate 7+ 32 25%Full within 6 41 32%

Full 7+ 25 19%Departments/Colleges

Engineering 30 23%Mathematics 14 11%Biology 14 11%Natural resources 12 9%Plant science 9 7%Chemistry 7 5%Animal Sciences 7 5%Other 7 5%Humanities 6 5%Physics 5 4%Food Science 4 3%Social Science 4 3%Entomology 3 2%Geological Sciences 3 2%Vet Medicine 3 2%Agricultural Economics 2 2%

Participating Campus List

New Mexico State University, Utah State University, North Dakota State University, University of Kansas, Kansas State University, University of Mississippi, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University

Tenure and promotion documents

Omission or obfuscation For promotion to full professor: Distinguished reputation in [discipline], such

that he or she would be invited to join our faculty at the rank of Full Professor (Department A).

Requirements deliberately unclear

No exact quotas or guidelines can exist and a combination of objective and subjective elements will enter into a final decision in the evaluation process. Decisions on acceptable performance levels must contain the individual judgments of the faculty and the administrators involved in the decision (Department B).

Standards for full professor

Promotion to Professor is based on attainment of sustained excellence in the assigned responsibilities of the faculty member and recognition of excellence by all appropriate constituencies (Department C).

Most common = National and International reputation, leadership

Expectations for promotion from associate professor to professor are considerably higher [than those for tenure], including leadership in scholarly research and/or instructional activities, and strong professional recognition at the national and international levels (Department D).

Effects of vague standards

Make the informal culture very important Allows a wide range of subjectivity Makes recourse nearly impossible

Barriers for all faculty

Junior administrative roles Other service – though this can be double-

edged Heavy teaching responsibilities (or a focus on

pedagogy) Health issues Non standard academic appointments

Gendered barriers

Work/family Academic women with children more likely to

be primary caregivers, spend more hours Women full professors are often primary

breadwinners The salience of gender in faculty work

Preliminary Implications

Transparency in policies would help, but is not a panacea

Work/family balance issues remain very important for women faculty, regardless of rank

Culture issues are much harder to tackle - but department climates are particularly crucial