An examination of competing explanations for the pay gap among scientists and engineers

Gender and Society

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 523-543

  Prokos, Anastasia ^a   Padavic, Irene ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Discrimination; Glass ceiling; Pay gap; Scientists and engineers; Sex differences

Indexed keywords

EID: 22944468168     PISSN: 08912432     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0891243205274462     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Allison, Paul. 1999. Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
2. Baxter, Janeen, and Erik Olin Wright. 2000. The glass ceiling hypothesis: A comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender & Society 14:275-94.
3. Blau, Francine. 1998. Trends in the well-being of American women, 1970-1995. Journal of Economic Literature 36:112-65.
4. Britton, Dana M., and Christine L. Williams. 2000. Response to Baxter and Wright. Gender & Society 14:804-808.
5. Committee on the Status of Women Faculty. 1999. A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter 11 (4): 1-20.
6. Cotter, David A., Joan M. Hermsem, Seth Ovadia, and Reeve Vanneman. 2002. The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces 80 (2): 655-81.
7. Ferree, Myra Marx, and Bandana Purkayastha. 2000. Equality and cumulative disadvantage: Response to Baxter and Wright. Gender & Society 14:809-13.
8. Goyette, Kimberly, and Yu Xie. 1999. The intersection of immigration and gender: Labor force outcomes of immigrant women scientists. Social Science Quarterly 80 (2): 395-408.
9. Gujarati, Damodar. 1992. Essentials of econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Hardy, Melissa A. 1993. Regression with dummy variables. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Hargens, Lowell, and J. Scott Long. 2002. Demographic inertia and women's representation among faculty in higher education. Journal of Higher Education 73:494-517.
12. Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153-62.
13. Heilman, Madeline E. 1995. Sex stereotypes and effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don't know. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences 10 (6): 3-26.
14. Kannankutty, Nirmala, and R. Keith Wilkinson. 1999. SESTAT: A tool for studying scientists and engineers in the United States. NSF 99-337. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Studies.
15. Maume, David. 1999. Occupational segregation and the career mobility of white men and women. Social Forces 77 (4): 1433-59.
16. _. 2004. Wage discrimination over the life course: A comparison of explanations. Social Problems 51 (4): 505-27.
17. Morgan, Laurie A. 1998. Glass-ceiling effect or cohort effect? A longitudinal study of the gender earnings gap for engineers, 1982 to 1989. American Sociological Review 63 (4): 479-83.
18. National Science Foundation. 2000. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, 2000. NSF 00-327. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
19. Padavic, Irene, and Barbara Reskin. 2002. Women and men at work, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
20. Petersen, Trond, and Laurie A. Morgan. 1995. Separate and unequal: Occupation-establishment sex segregation and the gender wage gap. American Journal of Sociology 101 (2): 329-65.
21. Ranson, Gillian, and William J. Reeves. 1996. Gender, earnings, and proportions of women: Lessons from a high-tech occupation. Gender & Society 10 (2): 168-84.
22. Reskin, Barbara. 2001. Employment discrimination and its remedies. In Sourcebook of labor markets: Evolving structures and processes, edited by Ivar Berg and Arne L. Kalleberg, 567-99. New York: Plenum.
23. _. 2002. Rethinking employment discrimination. In The new economic sociology: Developments in an emerging field, edited by Mauro F. Guillen, Randall Collins, Paula England, and Marshall Meyer, 218-44. New York: Russell Sage.
24. Reskin, Barbara, and Irene Padavic. 1994. Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
25. Science and Technology Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence Committee. 2004. Recruitment and retention of women faculty presentation. University of Michigan under the NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Grant. Retrieved 10 July 2004 from www.umich.edu/~advproj/stridepresents_files/frame.htm.
26. Society of Women Engineers. 1993. 1992 survey of women andmen engineers. Washington DC: American Association of Engineering Societies.
27. Sonnert, Gerhard, and Gerald Holton. 1995a. Gender differences in scientific careers: The project access study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28. _. 1995b. Who succeeds in science: The gender dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
29. Sturm, Susan. 2001. Second generation employment discrimination: A structural approach. Columbia Law Review 101:458-568.
30. U.S. Congress, Committee on Science. 1998. A review of H.R. 3007, The Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Act. Hearing before the Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Technology and Subcommittee on Basic Research, U.S. House of Representatives. 105th Congress, 2d session, 10 March 1998. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990. Survey of natural and social scientists and engineers (SSE), 1989. MRDF. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
32. U.S. Department of Labor. 2001. Earnings differences between women and men. Retrieved 15 January 2001 from http://www.dol.gov/dol/wb/public/wb_pubs/wagegap2000.htm.
33. Wright, Erik Olin, and Janeen Baxter. 2000. The glass ceiling hypothesis: A reply to critics. Gender & Society 14:814-21.
34. Wright, Erik Olin, Janeen Baxter, and Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund. 1995. The gender gap in workplace authority: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review 60:407-35.
35. Xie, Yu, and Kimberlee A. Shauman. 2003. Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.