Women Faculty in STEM Disciplines: Experiences with the Tenure Process and Departmental Practices

Rodica Lisnic, A. Zajicek, Brinck Kerr
{"title":"Women Faculty in STEM Disciplines: Experiences with the Tenure Process and Departmental Practices","authors":"Rodica Lisnic, A. Zajicek, Brinck Kerr","doi":"10.1177/0160597620978773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using data from a national survey of tenure-track faculty job satisfaction, the purpose of the study is to explore predictors of perceptions of tenure clarity for faculty in STEM and non-STEM fields. We build on extant studies and use the gendered organization framework as the conceptual lens to examine whether for four groups of faculty (women and men in STEM, and women and men in non-STEM) assessment of fairness in tenure decisions and evaluations, messages about tenure requirements, mentoring, and relationships with peers have a similar effect on their assessment of tenure clarity. Bivariate findings reveal that compared to all other faculty, women in STEM fields are less likely to perceive the expectations for tenure as clear, and the messages about tenure requirements as consistent. Compared to men in both STEM and non-STEM fields, women in STEM are less likely to assess tenure decisions and evaluations as fair, mentoring as effective, and relationships with peers as satisfactory. Multivariate results show that for women in STEM, except for relationships with peers, all other independent variables significantly influence their assessment of tenure clarity. Policy and practice recommendations are discussed.","PeriodicalId":81481,"journal":{"name":"Humanity & society","volume":"5 1","pages":"52 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Humanity & society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597620978773","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Using data from a national survey of tenure-track faculty job satisfaction, the purpose of the study is to explore predictors of perceptions of tenure clarity for faculty in STEM and non-STEM fields. We build on extant studies and use the gendered organization framework as the conceptual lens to examine whether for four groups of faculty (women and men in STEM, and women and men in non-STEM) assessment of fairness in tenure decisions and evaluations, messages about tenure requirements, mentoring, and relationships with peers have a similar effect on their assessment of tenure clarity. Bivariate findings reveal that compared to all other faculty, women in STEM fields are less likely to perceive the expectations for tenure as clear, and the messages about tenure requirements as consistent. Compared to men in both STEM and non-STEM fields, women in STEM are less likely to assess tenure decisions and evaluations as fair, mentoring as effective, and relationships with peers as satisfactory. Multivariate results show that for women in STEM, except for relationships with peers, all other independent variables significantly influence their assessment of tenure clarity. Policy and practice recommendations are discussed.
STEM学科的女性教师:终身教职过程和部门实践的经验
本研究使用来自全国终身教职员工工作满意度调查的数据,目的是探索STEM和非STEM领域教师对终身教职清晰度感知的预测因素。我们在现有研究的基础上,使用性别组织框架作为概念视角,研究四组教师(STEM领域的女性和男性,以及非STEM领域的女性和男性)对终身教职决策和评估的公平性评估、关于终身教职要求、指导和与同事关系的信息是否对他们对终身教职清晰度的评估产生类似的影响。双变量研究结果显示,与所有其他教员相比,STEM领域的女性不太可能认为对终身教职的期望是明确的,关于终身教职要求的信息是一致的。与STEM和非STEM领域的男性相比,STEM领域的女性不太可能认为终身职位的决定和评估是公平的,指导是有效的,与同事的关系是令人满意的。多变量结果表明,对于STEM领域的女性来说,除了与同事的关系外,所有其他独立变量都显著影响了她们对任期清晰度的评估。讨论了政策和实践建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信