Gender in science and engineering faculties: Demographic inertia revisited

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 10, 2015, Pages

  Thomas, Nicole R ^a   Poole, Daniel J ^a   Herbers, Joan M ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAREER; GENDER; HUMAN; MODEL; PARITY; POPULATION MODEL; UNIVERSITY; CAREER MOBILITY; DECISION MAKING; ENGINEERING; FEMALE; MALE; PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; SCIENCE; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; THEORETICAL MODEL; TIME FACTOR;

CAREER CHOICE; CAREER MOBILITY; ENGINEERING; FACULTY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PERSONNEL SELECTION; SCIENCE; SEX FACTORS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84949464106     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139767     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. NAS. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington DC: National Academies, 2007.
2. Valian V. Why so slow? Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 1999.
3. Adamo SA. Attrition of Women in the Biological Sciences: Workload, Motherhood, and Other Explanations Revisited. Bioscience. 2013; 63(1):43-8. doi: 10.1525/Bio.2013.63.1.9 WOS:000314144300009.
4. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011; 108(8):3157-62. doi: 10.1073/Pnas.1014871108 WOS:000287580400020.
5. Canizares CR, Shaywitz SE, Arbiola L, Buikstra J, Carriquiry A, Ehrenbergh R, et al. Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.
6. Hill C, Corbett C, Rose A St.. Why so few?: Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, D.C.: AAUW; 2010. xvi, 109 p. p.
7. Leboy P. Fixing the leaky pipeline. The Scientist. 2008; 22:67-70.
8. National Science Foundation DoSRS. Gender Differences in the Careers of Academic Scientists and Engineers: A literature Review. Arlington, VA: 2003.
9. Shaw AK, Stanton DE. Leaks in the pipeline: separating demographic inertia from ongoing gender differences in academia. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci. 2012; 279(1743):3736-41. doi: 10.1098/Rspb.2012.0822 WOS:000307780400014.
10. Gardner S. Cumulative negativity: reasons for women faculty departure from one research institution. Journal of Higher Education Management. 2013; 28:148-65.
11. Mason MA, Wolfinger NH, Goulden M. Do babies matter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. Garey AI, Gerstel NR, Hansen KV, Hertz R, editors. Rutgers NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2013. 172 p.
12. Morrison E, Rudd E, Nerad M. Onto, Up, Off the Academic Faculty Ladder: The Gendered Effects of Family on Career Transitions for a Cohort of Social Science Ph.D.s. Rev High Educ. 2011; 34(4):525-53. WOS:000291625700001.
13. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012; 109(41):16474-9. doi: 10.1073/Pnas. 1211286109 WOS:000310280300027.
14. Ward K, Wolf-Wendel L. Academic Motherhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2012.
15. Ceci SJ, Ginther DK, Kahn S, Williams WM. Women in academic science: a changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2014; 15:75-141. doi: 10.1177/1529100614541236 PMID: 26172066
16. Williams WM, Ceci CSJ. National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preferene for women on STEM tenure track. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418878112
17. Kaminski D, Geisler C. Survival Analysis of Faculty Retention in Science and Engineering by Gender. Science. 2012; 335(6070):864-6. doi: 10.1126/Science.1214844 WOS:000300356400046. PMID: 22344445
18. Trower CA. Success on the tenure track: five keys to faculty job satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2012. 270 p. p.
19. Baldwin RG, Chang DA. Reinforcing our "Keystone" faculty: Strategies to support faculty in the middle years of academic life. Liberal Education. 2006; 92:28-35.
20. Baldwin RG, DeZure D, Shaw A, Moretto K. Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university. Change. 2008; 40:46-55.
21. Baldwin RG, Lunceford CJ, Vanderlinden KE. Faculty in the middle years: Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. Rev High Educ. 2005; 29:97-118. WOS:000232042800005.
22. Neumann A. Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2009. 306 p.
23. O'Meara KA, Terosky AL. Engendering faculty professional growth. Change. 2010; 42:44-51.
24. Xu YHJ. Faculty turnover: Discipline-specific attention is warranted. Res High Educ. 2008; 49(1):40-61. doi: 10.1007/S11162-007-9062-7 WOS:000251830000003.
25. Ginther DK, Kahn S. Does science promote women? Evidence from academia 1973-2001. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers [Internet]. 2006; 12691.
26. Bakian AV, Sullivan KA. The effectiveness of institutional intervention on minimizing demographic inertia and improving the representation of women faculty in higher education. Gender, Science, and Technology. 2010; 2:206-34.
27. Hargens LL, Long JS. Demographic inertia and women's representation among facult yin higher education. The Journal of Higher Education. 2002; 73:494-517.
28. Marschke R, Laursen S, Nielsen JM, Rankin P. Demographic inertia revisited: An immodest proposal to achieve equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education. J High Educ. 2007; 78 (1):1-26. doi: 10.1353/Jhe.2007.0003 WOS:000243265300001.