Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inclusion of Women Academics into American Universities: Analysis of Women Status Reports

  • Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

American research universities play an important role in the ongoing campaign to improve the status of women academics. During the last four decades, the practice of producing ‘status of women’ reports has been widely developed as part of the policy and management repertoire to understand the barriers women academics may face in their institutions. In this study, we attempt to unfold the institutional determinants of producing such reports. The findings suggest that the most important determinant is the existence of a permanent and institutionally sanctioned commission on women at the university level. This type of institutional commitment to matters of women academics proves far more important than the presence of policy entrepreneurs or programme support such as the NSF ADVANCE initiative. The primary policy implication is that universities should invest in and maintain formal institutional structures that focus on the particular needs of women academics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, E. (2003) ‘Constructing women’s status: Policy discourses of university women’s commission reports’, Harvard Educational Review 73 (1): 44–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagilhole, B. and White, K. (2011) Gender, Power and Management: A Cross-cultural Analysis of Higher Education, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge, J.V., Curtis, D.V., Ecker, G and Riley, G.R. (1978) Policy Making and Effective Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S., Litt, J and Wang, Y. (2004) ‘Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as “women’s work” ’, NWSA Journal 16 (1): 194–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, R. (1988) How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organization and Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J. and Sachs, J. (2007) Performing and Reforming Leaders: Gender, Educational Restructuring, and Organizational Change, New York: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.P., Hamerle, A. and Mayer, K.U. (1989) Event History Analysis: Statistical Theory and Application in the Social Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blossfeld, H.-P. and Rohwer, G.t. (1995) Techniques of Event History Modeling: New Approaches to Causal Analysis, Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyne, G.A., Gould-Williams, J.S., Law, J. and Walker, R.M. (2005) ‘Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (3): 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, M.D. and Kellough, J.E. (2008) ‘Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 697–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972) ‘A garbage can model of organizational choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, J. and Hill, B. (2013) ‘Gendered universities and the wage gap: Case study of a pay equity audit in an Australian university’, Higher Education Policy 26 (1): 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, J., Thiele, B and Harris, P. (2002) Gendered Universities in Globalised Economies: Power, Career and Sacrifice, Oxford: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R., Hillyard, S. and Reed, M. (2007) Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Managerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities, Oxford University Press.

  • Dill, D.D. and Helm, K.P. (1988) ‘Faculty Participation in Strategic Policy Making’, in J.C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol IV, New York: Agathon, pp. 319–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. (2007) ‘The architecture of inclusion: Evidence from corporate diversity programs’, Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 30 (2): 279–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. and Colatrella, C. (2006) ‘Participation, performance, and advancement of women in academic science and engineering: What is at issue and why’, The Journal of Technology Transfer 31 (3): 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M.F. (2008) ‘Institutional Transformation and the Advancement of Women Faculty: The Case of Academic Science and Engineering’, in J.C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol XXIII, Houten: Springer Netherlands, pp. 73–103.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, J.C. and Griswold, C.P. (1994) ‘State-level centralization and policy innovation in US postsecondary education’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 16 (2): 161–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindera, J.J. (1993) ‘Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in the EEOC district offices’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3 (4): 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. and Kelly, E (2006) ‘Best practice or best guess? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies’, American Sociological Review 71 (4): 589–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamerman, S.B. and Kahn, A.J. (1991) Child Care, Parental Leave, and the Under 3s: Policy Innovation in Europe, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R.M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiser, L.R., Wilkins, V.M., Meier, K.J. and Holland, C.A. (2002) ‘Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy’, The American Political Science Review 96 (3): 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R.M. and Newman, M. (2001) ‘The gendered bureaucracy’, Women and Politics 22 (3): 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulis, S. (1997) ‘Gender segregation among college and university employees’, Sociology of Education 70 (2): 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulis, S. (1998) ‘Organizational variations in women scientists’ representation in Academia’, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 4 (1): 43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laws, J.L. (1975) ‘The psychology of tokenism: An analysis’, Sex Roles 1 (1): 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J.S. and Fox, M.F. (1995) ‘Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism’, Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1): 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, A.C. (2000) The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2000 Edition, Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, A. (1994) ‘State policy and faculty workload: Trends across the United States’, Higher Education Policy 7 (2): 47–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLendon, M.K., Deaton, R. and Hearn, J. (2007) ‘The enactment of reforms in state governance of higher education: Testing the political instability hypothesis’, The Journal of Higher Education 78 (6): 645–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K.J., Wrinkle, R.D. and Polinard, J.L. (1999) ‘Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question’, The Journal of Politics 61 (4): 1025–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, The American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T. and Alexander, A. (2008) ‘Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions’, Perspectives on Politics 6 (2): 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, L. (1999) Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morley, L. (2006) ‘Hidden transcripts: The micropolitics of gender in commonwealth universities’, Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (6): 543–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2001) From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

  • National Research Council (2006) To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council (2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council (2010) Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  • O’Connor, J.S., Orloff, A.S. and Shaver, S. (1999) States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, S.V. (2004) The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed, New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith-Doerr, L. (2004) Women’s Work: Gender Equity vs. Hierachy in the Life Sciences, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J.E. and Selden, S.C. (2003) ‘Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy’, Public Administration Review 63 (6): 700–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A.J., Vaque-Manty, D.L. and Malley, J.E. (2004) ‘Recruting female faculty members in science and engineering: Preliminary evaluation of one intervention model’, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 10 (4): 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, S. (2006) ‘The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 29 (2): 247–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, S. (2007) ‘The architecture of inclusion: Interdisciplinary insights on pursuing institutional citizenship’, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 30 (2): 409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, S. (2005) ‘Parental leave and child health across OECD countries’, The Economic Journal 115 (501): F7–F28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S. (2004) ‘The European Union and gender equality: Emergent varieties of gender regime’, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 11 (1): 4–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, V.M. (2007) ‘Exploring the causal story: Gender, active representation, and bureaucratic priorities’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, V.M. and Keiser, L.R. (2006) ‘Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoder, J.D. (1991) ‘Rethinking tokenism’, Gender and Society 5 (2): 178–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation: ‘NSF CAREER: University Determinants of Women’s Academic Career Success’ (REC-0710836, Monica Gaughan, PI). The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank Barry Bozeman, Mary Frank Fox, and Jim Hearn for their helpful comments. We also thank Jennifer Castleman for her assistance during data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 29208, SC, USA

    Xuhong Su

  2. School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, 85287, AZ, USA

    Monica Gaughan

Authors
  1. Xuhong Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monica Gaughan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Su, X., Gaughan, M. Inclusion of Women Academics into American Universities: Analysis of Women Status Reports. High Educ Policy 27, 529–544 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.40

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.40

Keywords

Search

Navigation