Women Faculty in Higher Education: Impeded by Academe

The pursuit of social justice is an endeavor that should appeal to all. In the academy we recognize the concept of social justice, that we must deal with the issues of legal, moral, and economic obligations of both the individual and the collective. We may believe that gender inequity is a misdeed of the past, that raised consciousness and federal laws have addressed the problem. Although we acknowledge the pursuit of social justice, we do not seem to be compelled to pursue it. Academic women have been a part of the faculty at American colleges and universities for well over a hundred years; yet, we would be mistaken to believe that social justice has been embraced and embodied by the academy. This panacea has yet to correct all misdeeds.

This paper attempts to synthesize literature available regarding the status of women faculty in the academy and barriers that hinder their success. First, a short treatise of the historical and sociological perspectives of women in higher education is provided. The institutional structure, culture and climate in postsecondary institutions will be examined. Particular attention will be paid to such structural issues as hiring practices, salary, tenure, research, service, and teaching and advising loads, while intradepartmental relations, socialization and mentoring patterns, isolation, research support, and financial resources and child care will be covered under climate and cultural issues. Both the experiences of the collectivity of women as well as individual women will also be portrayed. Findings from the literature suggest that gender inequity is still a practice of the present, rather than a part of the academy's past. Finally, suggestions for improving the chances for women's success in the academy will be provided.

Numbers of women faculty would be one way in which to demonstrate that the academy reflects an inequitable gender balance. Although women comprise 51% of the U.S. population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998), the National Center for Educational Statistics reported that of full-time instructional faculty in 1992, 61.2 percent were men and 38.8 percent were women (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).

Historical and Sociological Perspectives

This century has represented tremendous growth for American colleges and universities. Record numbers of students entered higher education following World War II. In the U.S. higher education total enrollments have grown from 2,338,226 in 1947 (Hammack, 2001) to 14,502,334 in 1999 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001a), an increase of 12,164,108 students. Greater emphasis of research was also encouraged by the U.S. government following the successful launch of Sputnik by the USSR in 1957. Such dramatic changes have not occurred in the composition of American faculty in higher education, however. In fact, the percentage of women faculty in the academy changed relatively little during the 20th century. During the years between 1930 and 1999, the percentage increase of women faculty rose only 11.7% (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975, p. 383; U.S. Department of Education, 2001b).

While we note that the U.S. Department of Education (2001b) report states that there are 219,898 women faculty whose primary responsibility is teaching in our nation's institutions, this number still represents only 37.2% of the total faculty (U.S. Department of Education, 2001b). West (1995) chose to view percentages from the time of suffrage: "In 1920, when women won the right to vote, 26 percent of full-time faculty in American higher education were women" (p. 26). Kelly (1993) lamented that the percentage of women instructors, professors, and presidents was higher in 1930 than it is today. Eisenmann (1995) claimed that in the 1950s women faculty represented only 19 percent of college instructional faculty. She discusses the impact of the launch of Sputnik on not only scientific research in this country, but also on the prevailing opinions of the time regarding women's abilities to even enter higher education. Examining the activities of a National Science Foundation (NSF) advisory committee in 1957, Eisenmann (1995) explained that the group's task was to investigate a pool of very bright students who did not go on to college.

They had defined "bright" as students with IQs, or something similar to that, in the top 10 percent of the nation. Of the 16- to 19-year-old cohorts with high IQs, 98 percent, perhaps 99 percent of those who did not go to college, were female…In other words, nearly all of the males with that kind of identified ability were continuing their education. (p. 23)

Finally, West (1995) looked at the last 20 years and reminds us that "while women's tenure rates show a net increase of only 1.5 percent over 20 years, men's rates have increased 8 percent" (p. 27). It would appear, then, that women faculty are still suffering from "a climate of unexpectation" [italics original] (West, 1995) in America regarding the use of their talents and training and how these talents and training are valued by the academy.

Institutional Structure

Several scholars argue that the structure of American colleges and universities contributes to the barriers women faculty face (Burns, 1994; Johnsrud & Atwater, 1993; Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994). Research, teaching, and service constitute the formal structure in which most faculty in U.S. universities work. Johnsrud and Atwater (1993) suggested that structure supporting the retention and personal issues women face should become part of the "traditional" faculty structure. Set up through the beneficence of patriarchy, the academy tends to reflect the values of the same. Women's experiences are not part of the dominant paradigm and are, at best, frequently misunderstood and, at worst, devalued and discounted.

Female faculty members perceive that there are other institutional and departmental barriers to overcome. Sandler (1992) contended that there is a hypothesis that the existing structure of the university is the "right" one, so the need for change is not present. Johnsrud and Des Jarlais (1994) echoed this thinking: "The undergirding assumption of this view is that the academy is a given, as are its norms and expectations, and it is women who must learn how to cope and succeed in the prevailing system" (p. 338). Such a structure is based on male career patterns only and those of women are not taken into consideration. Yet, new female faculty are often contending with professional and personal issues in ways that new male faculty may not be, such as, figuring out the reward structure that leads to tenure, trying to earn respect for their research and publications, heavy teaching loads and advising responsibilities, finding sufficient personal financial resources, and locating available and adequate child care. These issues will be discussed at more length later under culture and climate issues.

Davis, Ginorio, Hollenshead, Lazarus, Rayman, and Associates (1996) explained the confusion that many women faculty experience when trying to figure out the reward structure. Women faculty often assume that hard work will be noticed and properly rewarded.

They must learn to point out their contributions to management, take the leads on projects, and create a visible role for themselves…At the same time, they must not be seen as aggressive, boastful or blowing their own horn, since these are not "feminine" qualities. (Davis, et al., p. 51)

Hiring Practices

Perhaps, we should look at the academy from the viewpoint of new women faculty. But, to do so, we must first look at the hiring practices of colleges and universities. Bentley and Blackburn (1992) stated that "the record is clear that both the number and percentage of women earning doctorates in all fields has been increasing since 1965" (p. 697). With the increasing numbers of doctorates being earned by women, we might well assume that women are being hired as new faculty members in greater numbers. Evidence to the contrary shows that women are not hired into full-time faculty positions at nearly the same rate as men (Burns, 1994; West, 1995). West (1995) explained:

In 1981-82, national data indicated that 27 percent of full-time faculty, at all ranks, were women. At this time, 35 percent of Americans obtaining Ph.D.'s were women, a difference of 8 percent. By 1993-94, 31 percent of faculty were women, but the percentage of women among Americans earning doctorates had increased to 47 percent. The gap between these two figures had doubled from an 8 percent difference to a 16 percent difference twelve years later. (p. 27)

In fact, Burns (1994) indicated that the problem runs much deeper than just the number of women faculty hires. Gender disparity can be masked when institutions include part-time women faculty in their numbers (Blanke, 1999; Blanke & Hyle, 2000; Burns, 1994). While, indeed, some of these faculty are men, a number of them are women who want to work full-time, too. Burns (1994) ironically pointed out that a "…woman employed full-time on a college campus is (almost exactly) twice as likely to be found behind a typewriter or the cafeteria counter as in front of a classroom or administrative gathering" (p. 39). We find that "this disparity persists even though…higher education is that most closely linked to one of women's traditional occupations (teaching)" (Burns, p. 39).

West (1995) suggested that there may be other reasons for women not being hired at the same rate as men for faculty positions. She proposed that women may not be hearing about open faculty positions. West (1995) believes that colleges and universities are not conducting truly "open" searches, but are, instead, relying on the traditional academic grapevine, that is, a sort of "trickle-down" approach in finding their applicants. The problem with using the traditional academic grapevine stems from the fact that the bureaucratic structure which constructed the grapevine uses the same grapevine to find new hires. If most of the faculty and department heads are male, then the same strong ties (Granovetter, 1973, 1983) network is used to disseminate the message of open positions. Thus, it is estimated that only 25 percent of searches are truly open searches. "The remaining 75 percent of new hires, then, are hired by way of some type of 'inside track'" (West, 1995, p. 29). Women faculty and graduate students may never hear about open faculty positions.

Salary

One of the most frequently documented structural barriers that women faculty face is that of salary. It is consistently reported that men's and women's academic careers are distinguished by the difference in salary which persists across all faculty ranks (American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 2000; Bentley & Blackburn, 1992; Davis, et al., 1996; Hensel, 1991; Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994; U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Men are hired at higher salaries than are women, and the disparity in salaries remains throughout their academic lives. Figure 1 reflects the average salary of regular, full-time faculty as a whole as well as a breakdown by gender.

According to an executive summary from the U.S. Department of Education (2000) report on salary, promotion, and tenure status of women faculty in the U.S., "female full-time faculty averaged lower salaries than male faculty by about $10,000 in the fall of 1992" (p. v). The average difference in salary between male and female faculty across all types of institutions and for all ranks was $10,234 or approximately 22%. Seven years later, the average difference in salaries had been reduced to $9,741 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), a gain for women of $470. In the executive summary, 66% full-time female faculty earned base salaries of less than $40,000 compared with 37% of men. In contrast, while 5% of women reported salaries of $60,000 or more, 19% of men did so (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

Tenure

The U.S. Department of Education (2000; 2001) reported that women are tenured at much lower rates than are men (see Figure 2). Women's salaries also indicate that they are disproportionately found in the lower ranks of faculty. Data analyzed by the National Center for Education Statistics for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 1999-2000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) indicate that at all academic ranks and in all types of ranked institutions of higher education, women earn on average less than men (see Figure 1). Thus, faculty women must deal additionally with the tenure issue. Figure 3 reflects the percentage of full-time, regular faculty by rank and gender, and Figure 4 provides percentages of regular, full-time faculty by Carnegie classification and gender. Women are tenured at a substantially lower rate than are men (AAUP, 2000; Davis, et al., 1996). Those with tenure are disproportionately found in the ranks of associate professors, rather than full professors [see Figure 3] (AAUP, 2000; Blanke, 1999).

It appears, then, that the tenure-track agenda is a hidden one, at least for women and minorities. Davis, et al. (1996) noted that similarities regarding promotion exist in industry as well. They stated that women are promoted after they have already proven that they can perform; men are promoted based on their perceived potential. Women faculty often do not understand what is needed for promotion and assume that excellent research, quality teaching, and a strong service record will be rewarded with tenure. It is unfortunate that this type of thinking, while logical, is not necessarily true for women faculty.

Research

If junior women faculty publish at the same rate as junior men faculty (Hensel, 1991), then, it cannot be publishing rates that keep women from achieving tenured status. Thus, we might review women's research. Evidence here suggests that women's research is consistently not valued and is discredited or trivialized (Burns, 1994). Women are often considered outsiders in academe (Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988; Kelly, 1993) and feminist scholarship challenges basic assumptions through alternative paradigms (Kelly, 1993). Such challenges can be threatening to stakeholders of the status quo, which provides impetus to discredit women's research. Support for women faculty's research will be discussed further under climate and cultural issues.

Service

Service to the academy is another area in which there appears to be disservice done to women faculty. Seen in the best light, women faculty may serve on an inordinately large number of institutional committees because their numbers are so few. Kirkland (1997) stated that women faculty "are asked to serve on three or four times as many committees as men" (p. 99). Viewed another way, women faculty are treated as tokens on such committees and really are not expected to have a voice. According to Menges and Exum (1983), women "may be expected to appear when the institution's policy toward women and minorities requires public affirmation or to serve on committees to guarantee representation of their group" (p. 131).

Teaching and Advising Loads

Women faculty often have heavier advising loads than do their male counterparts. They are sought out by women and minority students for not only routine advisement, but for career and personal guidance as well. Teaching loads are usually heavier for women and female faculty are more likely to teach undergraduate courses than are male faculty (Finkelstein & LaCelle-Peterson, 1992; Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994).

The small number of women faculty members, then, serves to underline rather than undermine the majority culture. They are proportionately better represented in community colleges and liberal arts colleges than they are in research universities (see Figure 4). They are found in lower ranks at all institutions (Johnsrud & Atwater, 1993), except for two-year colleges. They find it difficult, if not impossible, to gain entry into the proper socializing networks necessary for advancement because the dominant males in the cultures in which they work often deny the existence of such a network (Davies-Netzley, 1998). Instead, the individual is praised and meritocracy is deemed to reign supreme. Women must learn to "fit in," thus re-emphasizing that "such cultural capital is gendered" (Davies-Netzley, 1998, p. 349). Thus, we find women faculty may perpetuate the problem by attempting to display in the academy certain qualities, such as individualism and competitiveness, which best fit in with the dominant male culture.

Climate and Culture

It is no wonder, then, that the climate for women in many institutions can be characterized as "chilly." Of reasons given for leaving prior to tenure in Johnsrud and Atwater's (1993) study of new faculty, institutional sex discrimination was the only issue that appeared among priorities of women faculty, with 24 percent of women ranking it as first, second, or third. The issue of intellectual isolation was represented by 43 percent of those who left and the issue of career support and personal relations with the department chair was also commonly reported.

Intradepartmental Relations

Women faculty experience more difficulties in relationships with departmental colleagues and chairs (Johnsrud & Atwater, 1993; Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994; Johnsrud & Heck, 1994; Johnsrud & Wunsch, 1994). Johnsrud and Atwater's (1993) study revealed that "chair and department relations appear as the next most frequently cited reason for leaving with women listing these relations twice as often as men" (p. 9). The conclusion from the study is that "women act on this perception [barriers to advancement]; they leave" (Johnsrud & Heck, 1994, p. 81). The barriers to advancement may be all too real for some women faculty. They may be all too aware that tenure achievement among women has not changed much through the years. They may even be aware of West's (1995) findings that "in 1995, 31 percent of full-time faculty in American higher education are women--an increase of 5 percent over seventy-five years" (p. 26) and concluded that they did not wish to wait that long for their chances to improve. Beaman-Smith and Placier (1996) aptly summarize the discrepancies women experience in higher education: "Women in academe are initiates who wandered into a ritual designed for men" (p. 3).

Socialization and Mentoring Patterns

Hiring new faculty is a costly investment. Most colleges and universities take the business of hiring new faculty very seriously and attempt to hire colleagues whom they believe will make important contributions to the institution and the discipline. But, of those who are hired, a number of false assumptions may be made. There is an assumption that new faculty have already been adequately socialized to the faculty profession through their experiences in graduate school. Graduate school socialization patterns tend to favor men (Beaman-Smith & Placier, 1996; Berg & Ferber, 1983; Clark & Corcoran, 1986; Johnsrud & Atwater, 1993; Stein & Weidman, 1989).

Men are more likely to receive mentoring, perhaps due to the majority of senior faculty being male. Though numbers of female graduate students are increasing, they often lack mentors, male or female. The problem carries over into the first position aspirants obtain. Female junior faculty also experience difficulty in finding mentors (Sandler, 1992) despite the premise that productivity of junior faculty is greater for those who are advised by faculty of the same sex (Menges & Exum, 1983). There is not just difficulty in finding a mentor, the new junior faculty may find that she is one of the first or, perhaps, the only woman in her department.

Isolation

Such situations lead to feelings of isolation for new junior women. Given that the first year is crucial for new faculty, the new junior woman experiences a double bind. She must overcome being "different" in at least two ways, being junior and being female. Women faculty tend to feel like outsiders in their own departments (Beaman-Smith & Placier, 1996; Clark & Corcoran, 1986; Creamer & Engstrom, 1996; Hensel, 1991; Johnsrud & Atwater, 1993; Johnsrud & Heck, 1994; Johnsrud & Wunsch, 1994; Kelly, 1993; Ramey, 1995; Rausch, Ortiz, Douthitt, & Reed, 1989).

If the woman hired is a member of a minority group, her first year experience is even more difficult (Sandler, 1992). Jackson and Kite (1996) explained the conundrum of African American women faculty: "As a result of their double minority status, neither career interventions developed for women nor career interventions developed for African Americans address the complexities these women face" (p. 4). Sandler (1992) stated that it is not uncommon for departments to hire a "qualified minority woman" (p. 2) as a new faculty member. Such a term unintentionally "implies that although minority women are generally not qualified, this particular woman is an exception to the rule" (Sandler, 1992, p. 2). Additionally, such women may be perceived as having entered the profession as a result of affirmative action, rather than through traditional means. Due to this perception, "they may be seen as possibly less qualified than other faculty. This adds an external burden to prove one's academic merit and intellectual competence, defined in more or less traditional terms" (Menges & Exum, 1983, p. 138).

Research also indicates that women and minority members experience their academic careers differently than do white males (Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994). Johnsrud and Des Jarlais' research indicates that a sense of isolation for these members is often a reason that such members leave institutions (p. 350). Experiences and incidents in the first year may ultimately determine success or failure, retention or attrition.

Research Support

Johnsrud and Atwater (1993) found that the top three organizational problems faced by women faculty were research support, teaching load, and teaching/research balance. Additionally, Creamer and Engstrom (1996) discovered in their study that most of their participants said their departmental work environments were "not supportive" of their scholarship, but that the work environments that they experienced as faculty members "ranged from 'hostile' to 'null,'" with null being further characterized as a sort of "benign neglect" (p. 10).

This same study found that women faculty stated that sizeable teaching and advising responsibilities acted as inhibitors to their publication productivity (Creamer & Engstrom, 1996). Female faculty spend less time in research activities and more time in teaching (Creamer & Engstrom, 1996; Frohlich & Holtz-Bacha, 1994; Johnsrud & Atwater, 1993, Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994; Johnsrud & Wunsch, 1994; Menges & Exum, 1983; Rausch, Ortiz, Douthitt, & Reed, 1989). From Creamer and Engstrom's (1996) study, they concluded that "women academics consistently characterized their experiences in ways that suggest that they perceived their publication productivity was established and sustained without significant support from their institution" (p. 15). Hensel (1991) stipulated that junior women faculty publish at the same rate as junior male faculty. Kirkland (1997) aptly pointed out that with so few women faculty, "they are asked to sit on three to four times as many committees as men," but that "despite these extra demands, women faculty are expected to teach and publish as much as men" (p. 99). Thus, we discover that women faculty do not receive the same returns on research productivity (Burns, 1994; Clark & Corcoran, 1986; Creamer & Engstrom, 1996; Hensel, 1991; National Science Foundation, 1994).

Financial Resources and Child Care

Other ways in which women faculty often experience the academy differently than do men involve personal financial resources and child care. The issue of personal financial resources is discussed more fully below under salaries that women faculty receive vis-à-vis male faculty; however, women seem to have a tendency not to value their qualifications and experiences as highly as do men (Kirkland, 1997) and, thus, find themselves with less financial support than men do from the hiring stage throughout their careers. Additionally, child-rearing appears to be only a women's issue. In Hensel's (1991) study, she discovered that:

In a question about the availability and quality of child care, 40 percent of the male respondents with children under 10 years of age said the question had no applicability to them. Closer examination of the data found that those responding "not applicable" were married men. (p. 49)

Whether these men's wives stayed home to care for the children or made all the child care arrangements is not the issue. Such responses are presumably reflective of the views of academe that women should be the sole bearers of responsibility for childcare. Such issues only serve to further the distance women faculty feel in the academy.

Improving the Chances for Women Faculty Success

Kelly (1993) reminded us that "to ignore the discrimination practiced against academic women is to condone and encourage it" (p. 28). There are a number of ways, then, in which the structure, culture, and climate of the academy can alter to improve women's chances for success. Perhaps, the first barrier to be overcome is the ideology of individualism since it seems to conceal "systemic barriers that women face in their attempts to achieve positions of power" (Chase & Bell, 1994, p. 34). To understand how and why women are underrepresented among faculty numbers and in educational leadership, this devotion to individuality must come to an end. Looking at each male faculty member individually and, supposedly, in terms of his own merit, and then viewing the actions of women faculty as a collective, is neither fair nor justified. It is also short-sighted and hegemonic. Such hegemony subjugates women and places them in an untenable and unproductive situation. We must view the underrepresentedness of women in the academy as a problem. We must look at who the gatekeepers are and the power that they wield.

Further, the academy must commit to an honest attempt to understand women faculty members' experiences. If we wish to retain women faculty then we must recognize "the full picture of women's lives, which are different from men's lives" (Kirkland, 1997, p. 42). In doing so, the academy opens itself up to reflection of women's research and stands as a possible defender, rather than a detractor, of their research. Benign neglect is not an acceptable manner in which to treat the research potential and productivity of its own women faculty. Yet, Bentley and Blackburn (1992) advise that "monitoring women vis-à-vis men will need to continue" (p. 705). Examining women faculty members' experiences in the academy as well as those of men is important: "Tetrault's bifocal phase cannot be completely abandoned" (Bentley & Blackburn, p. 705). They do, however, call for "creative energy to be directed to the feminist phase" (p. 706).

Particular attention should be paid to entry-level faculty and their needs. Wunsch (1994) advised that survival needs should be a priority in the first year and that this is an obvious and appropriate time to lay the groundwork for professional development and advancement. Department chairs should not wait for new faculty to come to them, but should check up on them regularly and make certain that new faculty realize that they have an ally.

Further, department chairs should encourage mentoring structures to support faculty women's scholarship. Department chairs and other administrators must particularly guard against the "Salieri" phenomenon, whereby access and progress to success is limited, much as the court composer for Emperor Joseph did to Mozart (Altbach, 1997). In pretending to be a benefactor to Mozart, Salieri actually blocked Mozart's career, rather than helping to advance it (Altbach, 1997). Clark and Corcoran (1997) described a modification of the phenomenon and applied it to the performance and behavior of academic women. From this, we learn that academic women are judged by a dominant, inner circle of men, who limit the women's progress to a relatively low level of advancement.

Johnsrud and Atwater (1993) contended that scaffolding structures be put in place for women to succeed, stressing that scaffolding is not a form of coddling. Instead, scaffolding structures provide ways for women to succeed by recognizing that women have different experiences than do men. They suggested that such structures are needed for personal issues, research, teaching, and service and noted that while some of their suggestions require funding, a number of them cost nothing at all. In this category, we find that awareness and commitment are integral parts to providing scaffolds for women to succeed. Johnsrud and Heck (1994) also placed emphasis on the need for leadership to change. They explained that leaders can "set a tone of collegiality, tolerance, and acceptance of differences" and that "deliberate efforts can be made to foster collaboration, intellectual cross-fertilization and social interaction" (p. 82).

Burns (1994) called for equity in hiring and promotion of women faculty. She discussed the inherent problem in hiring women into non tenure-track positions by demonstrating that women, who are quickly making up a "second tier" of faculty, are somehow "innately inferior" and that the "economy practiced by establishing a second tier of faculty has had grotesquely caste- and gender-ridden side effects" (pp. 43-44). By denying women faculty equal access to career development and advancement, colleges and universities must view themselves as bastions of injustice, rather than leaders of the future.

Colleges and universities must promote women not only to tenured positions, but also to positions of leadership. They must also recognize the typical leadership paradigm is borne out of patriarchy and be prepared to accept alternative leadership paradigms. Sederberg and Mueller (1992) remind us that the key quality of leadership that is sought in administrators is generally one which is associated with men and male styles of behavior. Davis, et al. (1996) advocated that more research on the institution as a primary source of gender inequity be initiated. They suggested changing the emphasis from telling women how to change to fit into the institutional culture to finding ways to change the institutions to make them more hospitable to women.

An international perspective about gender inequity supports the notion that American women faculty belong to a sort of underclass in the academy. This view posits that Americans tend to "miss something" when they do not utilize women as well as they have prepared them (Adelman, 1991). While not claiming to present or solve all the problems that women faculty face, the literature has provided us with a deeper, richer examination of the barriers that exist and suggestions for overcoming those barriers. Ultimately, in order to effect change, the changes will have to have support from both men and women and from both faculty and administrators. The education of future American professionals and researchers lies in their hands. The current imbalance between male and female faculty has substantial consequences not only for female students, but also for society in general. The discrimination that exists in higher education is likely to be mirrored and expressed subtly and indirectly, inside and outside of the academy.

References

Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtysomething: Paradoxes of attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement.

Aisenberg, N. & Harrington, M. (1988). Women in academe: Outsiders in the sacred grove. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Altbach, P. G. (1997). The academic profession: The professoriate in crisis. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

American Association of University Professors [AAUP]. (2000). The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 1999-2000: More good news, so why the blues? Retrieved October 1, 2001 from http://www.aaup.org/zsynop00.htm

Beaman-Smith, K., & Placier, M. (1996). The interplay of gender in the careers of white female and male senior professors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ASHE, Memphis, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 404 896).

Bentley, R. J., & Blackburn, R. T. (1992). Two decades of gains for female faculty? Teacher College Record, 93(4), 697-709.

Berg, H. M., & Ferber, M. A. (1983). Men and women graduate students: Who succeeds and why? Journal of Higher Education, 54(6), 629-647.

Blanke, D. J. (1999). Faculty tiering and academic inbreeding: A national investigation. Unpublished dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms Inc.

Blanke, D. J., & Hyle, A. E. (2000). Faculty tiering and academic inbreeding: One institution's relationships and realities. Advancing Women in Leadership, 3(1).
Retrieved October 1, 2001 from http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/winter2000/blanke-hyle.html

Burns, M. (1994). It's time to end random 'politically correct' accusations! Thought and Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 10(1), 31-55.

Chase, S. E., & Bell, C. S. (1994). How search consultants talk about female superintendents: Two researchers find acceptance of women as school leaders does not go far enough. The School Administrator, 5(2), 36-42.

Clark, S. M., & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization of women faculty: A case of accumulative disadvantage? Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 20-43.

Creamer, E. G., & Engstrom, C. M. (1996). Institutional factors women academics perceive to be associated with their publishing productivity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 405 755).

Davies-Netzley, S. A. (1998). Women above the glass ceiling: Perceptions on corporate mobility and strategies for success. Gender and Society,12(3), 339-355.

Davis, C.-S., Ginorio, A. B., Hollenshead, C., Lazarus, B. B., Rayman, P. M., & Associates. (1996). The equity equation: Fostering the advancement of women in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eisenmann, L. (1995). Weathering "a climate of unexpectation." Academe, 81(4), 21-25.

Finkelstein, M. J., & LaCelle-Peterson, M. W. (1992, Summer). New and junior faculty: A review of the literature. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 50, 5-14.

Frohlich, R., & Holtz-Bacha, C. (1994). From preponderance to underrepresentation: Female faculty in journalism and mass communication in Germany. Paper presented to the conference of the International Association of Mass Communication Research in Seoul, Korea. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 377 538).

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(9), 1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological Theory, Vol. 1, 201-233. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hammack, F. E. (2001). How have changes in postsecondary education affected secondary education? Retrieved October 1, 2001, from http://pages.nyu.edu/~fmh1/ changes.htm.

Hensel, N. (1991). Realizing gender equality in higher education: The need to integrate work/family issues. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports,2.

Jackson, C. H., & Kite, M. E. (1996). African-American women's mentoring experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, 1996. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 401 371).

Johnsrud, L. K., & Atwater, C. D. (1993). Scaffolding the ivory tower: Building supports for new faculty to the academy. CUPA Journal, 44(1), 1-14.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Des Jarlais, C. D. (1994). Barriers to Tenure for Women and Minorities. The Review of Higher Education, 17(4), 335-353.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Heck, R. H. (1994). A university's faculty: Identifying who will leave and who will stay. Journal of Higher Education Management, 10(1), 71-84.

Johnsrud, L. K., and Wunsch, M. A. (1994). Barriers to success for women in academic life: Perceptions of participants in a colleague pairing program. Higher Education Research and Development, 13(1), 1-12.

Kelly, J. W. (1993). Women in academe: Historical and sociological perspectives. Paper presented as part of the "Women in Higher Education: Progress and Prospects Panel" at the Eastern Communication Association Annual Convention, New Haven, CT. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 370 509).

Kirkland, J. J. (1997). Role models for the student majority. Thought and Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 13(1), 93-101.

Menges, R. J. & Exum, W. H. (1983). Barriers for women and minority faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 54(2), 123-144.

National Science Foundation. (1994). The visiting professorships for women program: Lowering the hurdles for women in science and engineering: NSF summary and comments. Study prepared for the National Science Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 385 433).

Ramey, F. H. (1995). Obstacles faced by African American administrators in higher education: How they cope. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 19(2), 113-119.

Rausch, D. K., Ortiz, B. P., Douthitt, R. A., & Reed, L. L. (1989, Spring). The academic revolving door: Why do women get caught? CUPA Journal, 1-16.

Sandler, B. R. (1992). Success and survival strategies for women faculty members. Paper written for the Association of American Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 350 906).

Sederberg, N., & Mueller, C. (1992). Career paths of women administrators: The intersection of work and family. Paper presented at NCFR Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, Orlando, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 361 610).

Stein, E. L., & Weidman, J. C. (1989, March) Graduate student scholarly activities: Gender and perceived program support. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1975). Historical statistics of the United States: Colonial times to 1970, Part 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). U.S. population estimates, by age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, 1990 to 1997. Release PPL-91. Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). National Center for Education Statistics. [1993 National study of postsecondary faculty (NSOPF:93)] Salary, promotion, and tenure status of minority and women faculty in U.S. colleges and universities, NCES 2000-173, by M. T. Nettles, L. W. Perna, & E. M. Bradburn. Project Officer: L. J. Zimbler. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

U. S. Department of Education. (2001a). National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Fall enrollment survey. Retrieved October 1, 2001, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/digest/tables/PDF/table210.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2001b). National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Staff, 1999" survey. Digest of education statistics: Table 229-Full-time instructional faculty in degree-granting institutions. By race/ethnicity, academic rank, and sex: Fall, 1999. Retrieved December 20, 2002, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt229.asp

West, M. S. (1995). Women faculty: Frozen in time. Academe, 81(4), 26-29.

Wunsch, M. A. (1994). Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 57, 9-13.

Author

Dr. Dana E. Christman is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Management and Development, New Mexico State University.