A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF GENDER EQUITY AND INSTITUTIONAL PRESTIGE IN SENIOR
FACULTY POSITIONS AT DOCTORAL-DEGREE GRANTING INSTITUTIONS
Chapter 1: Introduction
In October 2023, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the Nobel Prize in
Economics to Claudia Goldin, “for having advanced our understanding of women’s labour
market outcomes,” (Prize in Economic Sciences, 2023, para. 1). Goldin’s work combines labor
economics and economic history to understand women’s participation and earnings changes
over a 200-year history in the United States. Through this work, Goldin explains that women’s
participation in the labor market has not been linear, but U-shaped, and that societal changes
such as the shift from an agriculture based- to an industry based- economy, and the invention of
the birth control pill, have changed the course of labor market outcomes. Goldin elucidated that
both structural changes and women’s changing social norms around gender roles in work and
family provide explanations of changes in women’s labor market outcomes (Prize in Economic
Sciences, 2023). This work holds implications across the globe. As countries grow in prosperity,
how do they understand and study their own economic outcomes in relation to societal
perceptions of gender, power, and status; the choices women make in their societies; and
structural changes in a more connected and knowledge-based global economy?
Since 2006, the World Economic Forum has tracked the global gender gap which
benchmarks gender parity across four areas: economic participation and opportunity, health
and survival, political empowerment, and educational attainment (World Economic Forum,
2022). Globally, by 2009, 56% of the world’s children lived in countries that had achieved gender
1
parity at the primary school level as measured by equal percentages of boys and girls
completing education at this level; approximately 29% of countries had gender parity at the
lower secondary level; and only 15% at the upper secondary level (Fiske, 2012). Countries with
inequities varied in whether males or females were overrepresented, with a greater percentage
of developing countries having more male overrepresentation and developed countries having
more female
overrepresentation (Fiske, 2012).
In the United States, by most academic indicators, women are surpassing men; a trend
that has been referred to as the female advantage (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006; Fiske, 2012;
Niemi, 2017). However, contrary to the expected outcomes - that a college education yields
substantial economic return - the female advantage has not translated to the expected career
and economic outcomes for many women and there remains a gender gap in these areas, even
when controlling for time in the workforce (Bertrand et al., 2010; Fiske, 2012; Perna, 2005;
Williams & Wolniak, 2020). Power and status differentials have been persistent and women
have been underrepresented in the most senior positions across industries (Bertrand, 2017;
World Economic Forum, 2022; Williams & Wolniak, 2020). Researchers have studied the reasons
for this problematic phenomenon including potential explanations such as childbirth and rearing
(Angelov et al., 2016; Becker 1985; Benard & Correll, 2010; Bertrand et al., 2010; Budig &
England, 2001; Waldfogel, 1997); organizational structures (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006; Husu &
Morley, 2000; Ozkanlı et al., 2009); and gender stereotyping (Madera et al., 2009; Schein, 2007;
Turner, 2002). This complex problem has gone by many names, “sex discrimination, gender bias,
glass ceiling, mommy track, leaning out” (Goldin, 2021, p. 1)., and researchers now accept that
2
simple solutions focused on education and training or policy solutions are not sufficient.
Goldin’s Nobel Prize winning work informs us that “we’re often guilty of disregarding the
enormous scale and long history of gender disparities” (Goldin, 2021, p. 3).
The focus of this study was to investigate gender equity within the professoriate in
higher education in the United States. Annually, since 2006, the number of women earning
Ph.D.s surpasses the number of men earning Ph.D.s (Johnson, 2017, Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), 2021a), the number of women in junior faculty positions is
roughly equal to the number of men in junior faculty positions (IPEDS, 2021b). Women,
however, are underrepresented in the highest professor ranks and university leadership
positions (West & Curtis, 2006; American Council on Education, 2017; Bichsel & McChesney,
2017). As reported by the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) most recent
Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession (2023), in 2021 women held 57% of
faculty positions with the rank of lecturer; 59% of positions with the rank of instructor; 54%
with the rank of assistant professor; 47% associate professor; and 36% with the rank of
professor. Only 30% of college and university presidents are women, and only 8% lead doctorate
granting institutions (American Council on Education (ACE), 2017). Using data from the
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the aim of this study was to quantify
the relationship between gender representation at the most senior faculty ranks in the academy
within the unique economic conditions surrounding prestige in the higher education
marketplace.
3
Higher Education Context
The institution of higher education was developed during a time of male-normed work
environments and female-normed home environments. This meant that work practices and
policies were developed for the traditional male breadwinner role. Institutional environments
were not designed for life experiences of women, such as childbirth, child rearing, or domestic
responsibilities (Acker, 1992; Martin, 1994). Women’s slow-rise to leadership has been
attributed to factors such as the “second-shift” where women juggle both home and work
responsibilities (Martin, 1994, p. 409); the “hidden curriculum” where women learn to
assimilate in a male culture; and “solo status,” where women occupying top leadership positions
are surrounded by exclusively male peers (Thomas et al., 2004, p. 63). All these factors increase
the likelihood of stereotyping, isolation, and tokenism (Craig & Feasel, 1998; Thompson &
Sekaquaptewa, 2002).
Within the professoriate, women’s equality has experienced major progress over the
past century, however the pace of change has slowed or stalled in more recent decades
(England et al., 2020; Silbert et al., 2022). Gender disparities in power and leadership have been
observed and measured across academic faculty and leadership positions. In 2006, West and
Curtis published the “AAUP Gender Equity Indicators” that identified four indicators for
measuring gender equity. This study and subsequent ones, tell a similar story – that women are
overrepresented in non-tenure and contingent faculty positions and underrepresented at the
full professor level or leadership levels (Kezar & Acuña, 2020; Perna, 2001, 2005; Silbert et al.,
2022; West & Curtis, 2006). Researchers who have modeled gender disparities in academia
estimate that women will not achieve full parity for another one hundred or more years (Carr,
4
2001; West & Curtis, 2006). This reduced pace of progress across equity indicators suggests not
only that change is necessary at the cultural and institutional levels (England et al., 2020), but
also that a better understanding of the problem is needed.
At the cultural level, gendered social norms in higher education exist both within and
outside the academy. Women’s traditional roles in households and families have also become
part of their work lives through “academic housekeeping” (Bird et al., 2004, p. 105) or
“academic mommies,” (Ropers-Huilman, 2000, p. 24). At the institutional level, attempts at
addressing this problem have largely been gender taskforces charged with developing a
roadmap towards gender equity amongst the college or university’s faculty (Bird et al., 2004).
How well these plans are implemented depends on the strategic priorities of the institution and
their ability to allocate resources to multiple priorities, including revenue generating activities.
The Prestige Economy
Higher education institutions compete not only on revenue but also on prestige (Brewer
et al., 2002; Taylor & Cantwell, 2019). The term, “the prestige economy” was originally
developed as an anthropological term to describe the ways in which tribes held shared values
and activities that carried prestige. This term has also been used to understand the ways in
which institutions of higher education compete for prestige (Blackmore & Kandiko, 2011). Just
as institutions compete to maximize revenue, they also compete to maximize prestige.
Measuring prestige is “inherently competitive” (Blackmore, 2015, p. 1). In order to be more
prestigious, one must be compared to, and deemed as, being better than others. In academia,
this competitive process is evident at the university, faculty, and student levels.
5
Prestige is also inherently tied to the distribution of power. In a prestige economy, those
at the highest levels hold the greatest decision-making authority (Blackmore, 2015).
Researchers have explored the ways in which the prestige economy of higher education impacts
women’s experiences (Coate & Howson, 2016; Kandiko Howson et al., 2018) and ascension
(Allan, 2011; Silbert et al., 2022) in higher education. Particularly important, are doctoral
universities that produce the largest share of future faculty members at prestigious and prestige
seeking institutions. In the “AAUP Gender Equity Indicators Report” West and
Curtis (2006) reported that 47% of fulltime faculty taught at doctoral universities.
Statement of Problem
Economic growth represents one way of measuring and benchmarking equality and
gender parity. Women are not rising to the highest levels of faculty positions at the rate that
would be expected given the rates at which they have been entering, attaining, and ascending in
education, both in numbers and outcomes (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006; Fiske, 2012; Niemi,
2017; West & Curtis, 2006). The problem is particularly salient at doctoral institutions which
hold the highest levels of prestige across ranking and classification systems (Blackmore, 2015;
Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006). Gender parity is tracked across the globe as an indicator of
economic growth and success. Published annually, the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender
Gap Report, first issued in 2006 is the longest-standing index for tracking gender gaps over time
across the globe. Educational attainment serves as one of the four key measures, in addition to
economic participation and opportunity, health and survival, and political empowerment
6
(World Economic Forum, 2023). Of the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals, the fourth and fifth - quality education and gender equality - respectively are “ensure
inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”
and “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” (United Nations, 2015). As
countries grow in economic prosperity and gender equality becomes a priority, countries look
to the United States to benchmark and study models of success.
Doctoral degree granting institutions hold a unique place in the education landscape
because they serve as the highest level of educational attainment as well as the workplace for
individuals who are responsible for educating and training at this level. The faculty at these
institutions become exemplars of prestige through indicators such as faculty prizes awarded by
other leading experts, inventions and discoveries that shape our world, and transformative
written works that change ways of thinking. In the United States women have been outpacing
men in the number of PhDs earned. In 2021, the most recent IPEDS data available, 56% of
doctoral degrees were conferred to women, and 44% to men (IPEDS, 2021a). The female
advantage in education outcomes as well as education attainment now represents a new set of
challenges in equity with concern about boys falling behind (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006; Conger
& Long, 2010; Fortin et al., 2015; Whitmire, 2010). Given this trend in educational attainment,
one would expect that women, who are entering the professoriate at equal rates to men, would
also be equally represented at the professor level (Carr, 2001; West & Curtis, 2006). However, at
these highest ranks of the professoriate, women are underrepresented; in 2021, 36% of all full
professors were female (AAUP, 2023).
7
In order to make movements towards gender equity, it is necessary to take into account
the cultural context of a gendered history (England et al., 2020; Goldin, 2021; Zucker, 1977).
Society and institutions play a role in shaping the gender make-up of an institution. Moving up
ranks in doctoral higher education institutions signals individual prestige and is attained when a
group of peers with seniority welcome the entrant into the next rank through evaluation of their
work. Prestige confers a perception of respect and admiration and can only be granted if
bestowed by peers (Blackmore, 2015; Brewer et al., 2002). Examining the gendered history of
higher education, especially within the societal context of male-normed institutional
environments and female-normed home environments, it becomes clear that higher
educational cultural norms were built within the context of a male-dominated prestige
economy.
This study was designed to explore the concepts of gender equity and prestige within
the confines of doctoral higher education institutions. Gender equity in senior faculty positions
in higher education marks an important indicator in the broader societal concept of gender
equity in career outcomes for women. Achieving the full-professor rank in doctoral institutions
represents the highest level of attainment for an academic career and equity at this level would
signal a reduction of gendered cultural norms within the prestige economy. An aim of this study
is to fill a gap in understanding the complex interplay between prestige and gender equity at the
institutional level.
8
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to use quantitative methods to better understand the
relationships between institutional measures of prestige and the gender representation of
women in senior faculty positions at doctoral institutions. This work will begin to fill a gap in our
understanding of the relationships between institutional prestige and gender which, in turn,
may inform institutional practice and policy as institutions of higher education aim to achieve
gender equity amongst senior faculty ranks.
Using institutional survey data from IPEDS, I examined two cross-sectional datasets
(2022 and 2013), comprised of gender data for faculty positions across ranks and tenure
(dependent variables), 17 independent variables consisting of prestige variables and
institutional characteristics, and six control variables. Gender data across ranks were used to
develop four dependent variables which provided different ways to understand equity at the full
professor level. Together, they allow for a richer understanding than any one variable alone.
Institutional prestige is a latent construct that cannot directly be measured. The independent
variables proposed for this study were identified as a proxy for prestige based on a review of
literature and are described in Chapter 4. The 17 independent variables relate to institutional
characteristics (e.g. Carnegie Classification); student selectivity (e.g. admissions rate); student
body (e.g. percent of female students enrolled); and financial indicators (e.g. tuition and fees as
a percent of core revenue). Descriptive statistics were used to understand the representation of
gender across the four dependent variables for both years. Ordinary least squares (OLS)
multiple linear regression-based techniques were used to understand the relationship between
the prestige indicators and gender for each of the two time periods.
9
This study is grounded in theories of neo-institutionalism, institutional logics, and
feminist institutionalism (Alford & Friedland, 1985; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977).
Combined, these theories provide an understanding of how institutions change over time, how
institutions manage competing priorities, and how a gendered history can be incorporated into
understanding institutional change. These theoretical underpinnings are described in detail in
Chapter 4 and together inform a conceptual framework that served as a guide for the
development of the dependent variables, independent variables, and research questions as
described below.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this dissertation:
1. What was the representation of women at higher education doctoral institutions in
2022 and 2013 with regard to:
a. the percentage of faculty that are female;
b. the percentage of full professors that are female;
c. the percentage of full and associate professors that are female;
d. the percentage of tenured faculty that are female.
2. How did institutional prestige and other institutional characteristics explain the
representation of women in senior and tenured faculty positions at doctoral degree
granting colleges and universities in 2022 and 2013?
The first research question was aimed at understanding the current landscape of gender
representation at doctoral institutions in the United States across rank and tenure status. Using
descriptive statistics, this information provided context for the second research question which
10
was the primary question of this study. The second question aims to bring together the two
major themes of the study: first, gender representation in higher education faculty positions
and second, prestige maximization at higher education institutions.
Overview of the Dissertation
This dissertation begins with an overview of the problem, higher education context,
purpose statement, and research questions. The second chapter provides a review of existing
literature on gender representation in higher education, gender disparities across faculty ranks,
and relationships between institutional prestige and gender representation. The empirical
research in this section informed the selection of the dependent and independent variables.
Gaps in existing research informed the primary study question. The third chapter provides an
overview of the theoretical underpinnings of this study. Grounded in Meyer and Rowan’s (1977)
theory of neo-institutionalism, this chapter provides an overview of neo-institutionalism,
institutional logics, and feminist institutionalism. The chapter concludes with a conceptual
framework that brings these theoretical underpinnings together in the context of higher
education and in this study. The fourth chapter provides a description of the data, along with
descriptions of the dependent and independent variables and analytic techniques that were
used to answer the research questions. This chapter concludes with limitations of the study,
including reliability and validity. The fifth chapter summarizes the results of the regression
model for each of the dependent variables in 2022 and 2013. Finally, the sixth chapter
concludes the dissertation with a discussion of the findings, implications for future policy and
practice, and recommendations for future research.
11
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
The goal of this review of literature was two-fold, first to review existing literature on
gender across faculty ranks, and second, to review existing literature on institutional prestige.
The first section of this review provides an overview of gender representation across faculty
ranks historically and presently. The next section provides a review of empirical research related
to gender and faculty rank, including studies seeking to understand disparities through a variety
of lenses including economic, feminist, and anthropologic. The third section addresses
institutional prestige with a focus on how prestige is defined and measured. The final section
addresses the intersections of gender and prestige, bringing together the foundational
assumptions of the study. This literature review was informed by the following guiding
questions:
•What do we know about gender representation in higher education?
•What do we know about gender disparities in faculty ranks?
•What do we know about institutional prestige and gender representation in faculty
ranks?
Gender Representation in Higher Education Across Faculty Ranks
Women have historically been underrepresented in higher education. Prior to the
Morrill Act of 1862, the admittance of women in higher education was limited to a select
number of coeducational institutions where courses for women were often limited to less
rigorous and skills-based courses such as etiquette, sewing, and drawing (Nidiffer & Bashaw,
2001). The Morrill Act provided 30,000 acres of public land to states “which may provide
12
colleges for the benefit of agriculture and mechanic arts,” (Morrill Act of 1862, 2018). With this
expansion of public colleges in the United States came an increase in women receiving higher
education degrees side-by-side with men. In the first cohort of students after the Morrill Act
35% of college students were women and 70% of those women attended public coeducational
institutions (Nidiffer & Bashaw, 2001).
Women’s representation across higher education has continued to increase since those
times. The passage Title IX in 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education when
institutions receive federal support, marked another time for significant increases in women
earning degrees. Prior to the passage of Title IX, women faced restrictions in training and
professional practice including discriminatory practices such as quotas for admission (Parker,
2015). Today, women outpace men in degrees earned. Of the 2,066,445 bachelor’s degrees
conferred in the 2020-2021 academic year, 41.7% of them were awarded to men, and 58.3% to
women; these figures have been relatively stable over the past 20 years, shifting only one
percentage point from 42.7% for men in 2000-2011 and 57.3% for women (IPEDS 2021c).These
numbers represent a complete reversal from 1972 academic year where 56.2% of degrees were
awarded to men and 43.8% to women (IPEDS, 1990). This trend has continued to the Ph.D.
level, of the 194,059 doctoral degrees conferred in 2021, 44% were awarded to men and 56% to
women (IPEDS, 2021a); and to the faculty level, of the 176,909 assistant faculty in 2021, 46%
were male and 54% female (IPEDS, 2021b).
However, this trend has not continued up the ranks to the full professor level, when in
2021, 64% off faculty at the professor level were male and 36% were female. Given the
increases in women’s educational attainment and entry into faculty positions since the passage
13
of Title IX in 1972, the representation of women in senior ranks has been lower than expected
(West & Curtis, 2006). The most recent data from the National Center of Education Statistics of
faculty across ranks (IPEDS, 2021b), also show lower representation of women at the most
senior ranks. While 48% of the 837k total faculty in the 2021 academic year were women, the
breakdown across ranks shows a less equitable split. As shown in Table 1, there is a 1-2%
difference between the share of total men and women at the associate professor, assistant
professor, instructor, or lecturer level, however, there is a 6.4% difference between the share
of men in the professor level and the share of women at the professor level.
Table 1
Share of faculty by total number of faculty in academic year 2020-2021
Note: Adapted from IPEDS (2021c). Table 315.20. U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/). In the public domain
The differences are even greater when reviewing the relative share of men and women
at each rank within their own gender, as shown in Table 2. Of all male faculty in 2021, 19.6% of
them were at the associate professor level and of all women faculty in 2021, 19% were at the
associate professor level. This difference widens drastically at the professor level with 27.8% of
all male faculty at professor level compared to 16.8% of all women faculty at the most senior
14
rank, an 11-point difference at the most senior rank, compared to a 0.6% difference at the
associate professor rank. As shown in Table 2, this difference is reversed at the lower ranks, with
a greater proportion of female faculty at the assistant professor or non-tenure track and
contingent faculty ranks.
Table 2
Share of faculty by gender in academic year 2020-2021
Note: Adapted from IPEDS (2021c). Table 315.20. U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/). In the public domain.
Empirical Research on Gender Representation in Faulty Positions and Rank
This section provides a summary of empirical research around gender representation in
faculty positions and rank. The section opens with a framework for gender equity and identifies
gender equity indicators. Next are empirical studies on gender representation at both ends of
the career ladder - in the non-tenure and contingent positions, and in full professor and
leadership positions, respectively. Studies related to demographic representation and climate
constitute the third topic. And finally, this section concludes with studies related to
representation and gender social norms.
15
Gender Equity Indicators
West and Curtis (2006), used the 2006 American Association of University Professors
(AAUP) Faculty Compensation Survey to compile a set of gender equity indicators in higher
education across the United States. These equity indicators - employment status; tenure status;
full professor rank; and average salary, provided a benchmark for future data collection and
analysis. These equity indicators are further parsed by institution type. The authors highlight
that the rate of change was varied across institutional types with the slowest changes
happening amongst the most senior ranks at doctoral degree granting institutions. The equity
indicators identified in the West and Curtis (2006) report have been used as the backdrop for
studies ranging from seeking to understand culture, climate, and departmental experiences of
female faculty (Hart, 2011; Maranto & Griffin, 2011); the pathways to leadership and the
prevalence of women in academic leadership positions (Bilen-Green et al., 2008; Lee & Won,
2014); and barriers and pathways to promotion and tenure (Bonawitz & Andel, 2009; Kezar &
Acuña, 2020).
The tables below provide data on each of these equity indicators from the West and
Curtis (2006) report and subsequent data from the most recent AAUP Economic Status of the
Profession Report which uses data from 2021 (AAUP, 2023). The third equity indicator, full
professor rank, informed the conceptual framework of this study in order to derive the
dependent variable.
Employment Status. Achieving faculty gender equity begins with addressing
employment status within higher education institutions. Historically, women were often
encouraged to take on part-time faculty roles as a way to balance their work and family
16
responsibilities (Mason & Goulden, 2004; West & Curtis, 2006; Wolfinger et al., 2008). However,
subsequent research has found that women would prefer full-time positions that offer flexibility
to manage both work and family commitments effectively (Bronstein et al., 1993). The first
crucial step in advancing gender equity in higher education is for women to enter into full-time
positions. This requires women to have equal opportunities to enter and thrive in full-time
faculty positions through empowering them to contribute fully to the academic community
while also maintaining flexibility to manage work-life balance. Table 3 shows the percentage of
full-time women across all ranks separated by institution type for the
2006 and 2021 academic years.
Table 3
Percentage of full-time faculty across all ranks and any tenure status by institution type
Note. Adapted from West & Curtis, (2006), AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators.
American Association of University Professors
(https://www.aaup.org/reports publications/publications/see - all/aaup - faculty - gender -
equity - indicators - 2006 ). In the public domain. And AAUP, (2023), The Annual Report on
the Economic Status of the Profession 2022-23 (https://www.aaup.org/file/ARES - 2022 -
23.pdf). In the public domain.
Tenure Status. For women to continue to advance in the professoriate, the next critical
step is to gain access to tenure-track positions followed by securing tenured status. At the time
of writing the report, West and Curtis (2006), noted that in the 2005-2006 academic year, 30%
17
of all full-time female faculty were in non-tenure track roles compared to 18% of full-time male
faculty. Job security in non-tenure track roles is particularly precarious due to the prevalence of
short term, 1-3 year, contracts (West & Curtis, 2006). Analyzing historical data on Ph.D.s earned
by gender and those individuals’ progression into the academic ranks, West and Curtis (2006)
concluded that the representation of women in tenure-track positions fell short of what one
would expect if women and men were hired at equal rates. Table 4 shows the percentage of full-
time female faculty across all ranks by tenure and institution type in 2005-2006. More
empirical research on this topic is presented later in this section.
Table 4
Percentage of full-time female faculty across all ranks by tenure status and institution
type
Note. Adapted from West & Curtis, (2006), AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators. American
Association of University Professors (https://www.aaup.org/reports -
publications/publications/see - all/aaup - faculty - gender - equity - indicators - 2006 ). In the public
domain. The most recent data for 2021 was not reported.
Full Professor Rank. After obtaining a full-time position and securing tenure, the next
step is to achieve the highest and most prestigious faculty rank of full professor. The full
professor rank is a particularly salient equity measure because the percentage of tenure
positions has been declining and not all institutions have a traditional tenure system (Kezar &
Acuña, 2020). Across institution types, doctoral granting institutions have the lowest
representation of women in full professor ranks, and associate’s granting institutions have the
highest representation of women in full professor ranks (West & Curtis, 2006). Over fifty years
18
since Title IX in 1972, the lower representation of women in master’s and doctoral institutions
can no longer be accounted for by earlier exclusion of women from graduate education (West &
Curtis, 2006). Table 5 shows the percentage of full-time faculty with the rank of full professor by
institution type. Women were overrepresented at the associate degree granting, and
underrepresented at baccalaureate-, master’s-, and doctoral- degree granting institutions, at
the professor rank.
Table 5
Percentage of full-time faculty with the rank of full professor, with any tenure status, by
institution type
Note. Adapted from West & Curtis, (2006), AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators. American
Association of University Professors (https://www.aaup.org/reports -
publications/publications/see - all/aaup - faculty - gender - equity - indicators - 2006 ). In the public
domain. And AAUP, (2023), The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2022-23
(https://www.aaup.org/file/ARES - 2022 - 23.pdf ). In the public domain.
Average Salary. The fourth equity indicator is the salary equity ratio – the ratio of
average female faculty salaries compared to average male faculty salaries (West & Curtis, 2006).
A salary equity ratio of 100% would indicate that, on average, women earn the same as men, a
lower ratio indicates that women earn lower average salaries compared their male
counterparts. Some salary inequities are accounted for by women being overrepresented in
fields with lower pay; however, inequities persist in situations where women are hired into the
same fields as men, but at lower pay (West & Curtis, 2006). Across all institutions and all faculty
ranks, the salary equity ratio was 81%, which West and Curtis (2006) state is a “comparison that
19
has remained virtually unchanged since the AAUP began collecting separate salary data for
women and men faculty in the late 1970s” (p. 11). At 82% in 2020-2021, this comparison seems
to continue to remain virtually unchanged. Table 6 shows the salary equity ratio for full-time
female faculty, with any tenure status, by faculty rank and institution type.
Table 6
Salary equity ratio for full-time female faculty, with any tenure status, by faculty rank
and institution type
20
Table 6. Continued
Salary equity ratio for full-time female faculty, with any tenure status, by faculty rank and
institution type
Note. Adapted from West & Curtis, (2006), AAUP Faculty Gender Equity
Indicators. American Association of University Professors
(https://www.aaup.org/reports - publications/publications/see - all/aaup -
faculty gender - equity - indicators - 2006 ). In the public domain. And AAUP, (2023), The
Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2022-23
(https://www.aaup.org/file/ARES - 2022 - 23.pdf ). In the public domain.
Gender Representation in Non-Tenure Track and Contingent Faculty
In today’s knowledge economy, higher education institutions have moved away from
being “cozy sanctuaries” and towards becoming a central “backbone” of society (Baldwin &
Chronister, 2001, p. 1). With this move to a more centralized place in economic prosperity,
institutions of higher education enter a competitive landscape which forces re-thinking of
priorities and budgets. From 1975 onwards, the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty
have been declining and the number of non-tenure track faculty have been increasing (Baldwin
& Chronister, 2001; Schuster et al., 2006).
Part-time positions in higher education have been described as “both horizontal and
terminal” (Lundy & Warme, 1990, p.1), because they do not provide a path for advancement or
tenured positions. These positions typically have lower salaries and lack job security, benefits,
and participation in professional development or faculty governance (Kezar & Acuña, 2020).
21
Part-time and contingent faculty positions also typically exclude research and scholarly
publishing from job responsibilities, marginalizing them from the prestige of the institution
(Lundy & Warme, 1990). Mobility between non-tenure track to tenure-track is very limited
(West & Curtis, 2006). Women have long been overrepresented in part-time, non-tenure track,
and contingent faculty positions. In demographic studies, Bowen and Schuster (1986) observed
that between 1960 and 1982 full-time female faculty increased from 17% of all faculty to 27%
and part time female faculty increased from 23% to 36%. Concentrated at the lower ranks, 52%
of instructors were women compared to only 10% of full professors. A greater proportion of
female faculty were seen at less prestigious institutions, such as community colleges versus
research universities (Bowen & Schuster, 1986)
Harper et al. (2001) used data from the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty
(NSOPF-93) along with survey and interview data at twelve institutions in order to describe the
nature of full-time non-tenure track faculty at four-year institutions of higher education. The
demographic studies showed that women held 48% of full-time non-tenure track positions but
only 30% of full-time tenure track positions. Amongst teaching and research in these nontenure
track positions, women made up 53% of teaching faculty and only 31% of research faculty. The
researchers conclude that while many colleges and universities have made an effort to diversify
their faculty, this work is incomplete and that the heavier representation of women and
minorities at the lower ranks is “especially notable and troublesome” (Harper et al., p. 113).
Harper et al. (2001) also used NSOPF-93 along with results from an earlier research
project comprised of surveys and interviews across 89 institutions to understand the profile of
22
women in non-tenure track positions. Their findings included both similarities and differences
amongst non-tenure track men and women. Similarities include women and men are equally
likely to have a doctorate; are similar in age and time of service; are likely to be in the rank of
assistant professor; and have similar job satisfaction metrics. Differences include women on
non-tenure track positions were paid less than non-tenure track men; were more likely to teach
only undergraduate students; were less likely to advance beyond the rank of assistant professor;
were less likely to be tenure-track eligible; and were twice as likely to not be married
or have children than non-tenure track men (Harper et al., 2001).
In a longitudinal study of York University, the third largest Canadian institution of higher
education at the time of the study, Lundy and Warme (1990) sought to understand voluntary or
involuntary status of women entering into, and remaining in, part-time positions. They found
that a significantly greater proportion of women than men reported that gender played a role in
their career decisions and opportunities; and are more likely than men to have been steered
into part-time positions. They also concluded that for faculty already in contingent positions,
men are more likely than women to transition to into full-time positions (Lundy & Warme,
1990). Hart (2011) also explored the voluntary or involuntary nature of women in non-tenure
track positions. Through a phenomenological case study analysis of women in non-tenure track
faculty positions at a research university, Hart (2011) reported that non-tenure track positions
were not the desired positions for most women; most would have preferred to be in a full-time
tenure-track appointment. The overrepresentation of women in part-time and non-tenure track
23
positions means that many women are not on a pathway towards leadership or power within
the academe (Bonawitz & Andel, 2009).
Gender Representation in Full Professor Positions
Perna (2001) used data from the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary faculty to
determine if there was a relationship between gender and the probability of being tenured or
holding the rank of full professor. Perna controlled for other human capital and performance
related variables including educational attainment, experience, and publications standardized
by academic field. At the institutional level, Perna used Carnegie Classification as a control
variable to account for structural differences across institutions and evaluated differences across
disciplines using Biglan's (1973) categorization of disciplines. Perna evaluated data on sex, race,
and citizenship characteristics across 4-year and 2-year institutions; the data relating
to gender and rank at four-year institutions are presented here.
The descriptive statistics from this study showed that a smaller share of women, 58%,
than men, 77%, held tenured positions. Perna also tested the influence of race, human capital,
refereed publications, type of institution, academic field, and work role on the probability of
holding a tenured position for both men and women and concluded that, for both genders,
human capital investments made the largest contribution to the probability of holding tenure.
Measures of academic discipline made the smallest contribution. The model deviated for men
and women in one area – women experienced a sharper decline in likelihood of holding a
tenured position as the amount of time spent teaching increased; men also experienced a
decline, but with a smaller magnitude.
24
For the rank of full professor, the descriptive statistics showed that 37% of tenured
women were full professors, compared to 62% of male faculty. Perna’s analysis concluded that
even when controlling for all variables (race, human capital, refereed publications, type of
institution, academic field, and work role), women tenured faculty were 10% less likely than
their equivalent male tenured faculty, to hold the rank of full professor. The paper concludes
with a discussion on the need to examine policies and practices for discriminatory behavior
(Perna, 2001).
Demographic Representation and Cultural Climate
Researchers have sought to understand the low representation of women rising to
professor ranks. The studies outlined below identify several themes related to demographic
representation of women and the climate or cultural environment within the department or
institution. In examining the cultural climate in academic departments, Maranto and Griffin
(2011) used survey data to examine women’s perceptions of exclusion in relation to the
demographic make-up of a department and individual perceptions of fairness within the
department. Maranato and Griffin (2011) conclude that women perceive greater exclusion
when there is low gender representation in the department.
Paxton et al. (2012) conducted an empirical study of the representation of women in
philosophy departments across the United States. They studied the gender representation
across four levels – introductory students, students in the major, graduate students, and faculty.
The researchers studied the pipeline for significant changes and their findings show a significant
drop in female students between introductory-level courses and major-level courses but no
significant differences between male and females between major-level students and graduate
25
students or between graduate students and faculty. Their data also indicate a positive
correlation between the number of female faculty members and the number of female majors.
The authors conclude that institutions seeking to increase the number of female faculty in
philosophy departments can support this effort by increasing the exposure that early
philosophy students have to female professors (Paxton et al., 2012).
Demographic inertia has also been observed with regard to salary equity. Lee and Won
(2014) studied the relationship between the representation of women in senior faculty ranks
and salary equity at junior ranks. The researchers controlled for high-paying disciplinary fields
and the research intensiveness of the institutions and found a positive relationship between
gender representation of women in senior ranks and greater salary equity amongst junior ranks.
The authors conclude that gender representation at senior ranks contributes to improved equity
at junior ranks perhaps through efforts such as improved mentoring or greater inclusion of
women’s voices in policy making.
Kezar et al. (2007) interviewed 75 faculty members in higher education institutions
where faculty members held a strong voice in the leadership of the institution. The researchers
found that that almost every successful faculty member had been mentored by a supportive
leader (e.g. department chair, senior faculty member, administrator). Furthermore, this
supportive individual not only served as a mentor for scholarly productivity and leadership
potential, but also as someone who held the ability to change working conditions in favor of
supporting faculty in their careers both as scholars and leaders. With regards to mentors who
hold the authority to change work conditions, Kezar (2007) concluded that “the value of role
models and mentors cannot be underestimated” (p.16).
26
In a study with data from over five hundred STEM professors at a top public research
university, Blair-Loy and Cech (2022) studied scientific merit and meritocracy from the
perspective of professional culture. They studied widely shared beliefs of STEM culture and
centered their analysis around two prominent cultural schemas - work devotion and scientific
excellence. The work devotion schema is described as a “cultural mandate that defines work as
a calling deserving of undivided allegiance” (Blair-Loy & Cech, 2022, p. 31). Faculty who are
deemed meritorious hold emotional and moral connection to their work and institution. In
other words, STEM work is a part of their personal identity. The scientific excellence schema,
“serves as a cultural yardstick that STEM academics use to measure the competence and
worthiness of their colleagues” (Blair-Loy & Cech, 2022, p. 4). Meritorious STEM faculty fit the
schema of having high levels of individual creativity, holding self-promoting leadership
characteristics, and being assertive. Some scientists are rewarded for having strong relationship
skills or for having work that is deemed “depoliticized” and having no connection to social
equity or political concerns (Blair-Loy & Cech, 2022, p. 7). The scientific excellence schema is
used for all decisions requiring an evaluation of scientific merit – hiring, promotion, and
acceptance of peer-reviewed papers, for example.
Cultural schemas are constructed over time. Blair-Foy and Cech, (2022) highlight that the
schemas of work devotion and scientific excellence in the STEM professions have developed as a
result of cultural and political processes, are Western cultural constructs, and hold the
“ideal” scientists as being white, masculine, and heterosexual (Blair-Foy & Cech, 2022, p. 26).
The perception of a strong scientist is racialized, with Black, Latinx, and Native American
scientists being seen as more supportive of the work rather than as leading contributors.
27
BlairFoy and Cech (2022) conclude that these schemas unfairly disadvantage some faculty
groups, such as women, faculty of color, and LGBTQ faculty. They argue that critically reflecting
on how scientific merit is measured requires an evaluation of the long-held cultural schemas
that have become integrated with the merit process.
Gendered Social Norms
Gendered social norms exist both outside and within the academy. Outside of the
academy, women’s roles in families and households are one of the leading factors attributed to
the glass ceiling and gender pay inequities (Bertrand, 2017). The American Council on Education
(ACE) (2017) reported that 30% of college presidents were women and only 8% lead doctorate
granting institutions. Furthermore 32% of women presidents versus 16% of men presidents
surveyed reported having altered their career progression in order to care for others (ACE,
2017). These differences between male and female senior leaders reflect an important
characteristic of society where women are more likely than men to take a lead role in caring for
children or aging relatives.
Even though there have been significant changes in societal care provision for children,
“gendered patterns” (Baker, 2012, p.3), the male and female roles based on societal constructs
of employment and family, still exist. Motherhood and fatherhood hold specific schemas where
the majority of childcare is performed by mothers (Baker, 2012).This care extends beyond
parenting and includes care for aging relatives or disabled family members. When individuals
with a disability and an aging person are not receiving care through formal organized structures,
they are receiving care from informal mechanism such as family and friends
(Bittman & Folbre, 2004).
28
Within the academy, researchers have studied the differences in workload and gender.
Guarino and Borden (2017) evaluated gender differences in the academe with respect to
service in faculty workload. Service is one of the three workload components of most
tenuretrack and tenured positions; however, it is generally not ranked as highly as teaching and
research, particularly in research intensive institutions (Bird et al., 2004). Service can be internal
to the university (e.g. faculty committees, supervising departmental programs) or external to
the university (e.g. serving on professional boards). Guarino and Borden, (2017) used two large
data sources – the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement which asked questions with respect to
how faculty spend their time (research, teaching, student advising, and service); and data from
two research-intensive campuses of a large public multi-campus university which included
activity reports for annual faculty evaluations. The results from analysis of each of these data
sets shared the same conclusions – that women, on average, reported both a greater number of
service-related activities and a greater number of hours spent on such activities. The results also
concluded that these differentials are largely due to internal service, which has less individual
reward compared to external service that has a greater individual reward (Guarino &
Borden, 2017).
Universities that have identified potential gender equity challenges, such as the
underrepresentation of women in male-dominated fields, will often use institutional and
benchmarked data to analyze gender equity at their institution and provide recommendations
for remediation (Bird et al., 2004). These types of reports are considered service work and Bird
et al. (2004) noted that they often fall on the shoulders of women. Furthermore, the
researchers defined this work as “academic housekeeping,” (Bird et al., 2004, p. 195) work that
29
benefits the institution but is often unpaid, invisible, and unrecognized. Bird et al. (2004)
studied the process of generating such reports and discussed the ways in which this work
conflicts with career advancement and provided recommendations for addressing the problem.
They concluded that gender equity and other campus challenges that include marginalized
groups, would have greater success of remediation if they were moved to a central priority of
the institution and included collaboration across administration as well as the guidance of the
marginalized group (Bird et al., 2004)
Mason and Goulden (2004) noted that gender equity in faculty positions is usually
evaluated by comparing women’s professional success with respect to men’s. Their study
focused on gender equity in terms of familial outcomes including childbirth, marriage, and
divorce. The researchers used data from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients and the University
of California Faculty Work and Family Survey to focus on the issues facing faculty in the
University of California system, following over 30,000 Ph.D.’s over their life course and surveying
more than 8,500 faculty. Twelve years after earning their Ph.D., 41% of women on the
traditional tenure-track career ladder were married with children, compared to 69% of men;
and 20% of women were married without children, compared to 15% of men (Mason &
Goulden, 2004). Subsequent research by Wolfinger et al. (2008) focused on gender, marriage,
and fertility in the academy and concluded that both marriage and having children had an
independent negative relationship to women obtaining tenure track and tenured positions.
While causal effects were not determined, the findings suggested, first, that women may have
greater success in an academic career if they do not pursue marriage or childbirth; and second,
that women who have been successful in the academe have different family formations than
30
their successful male counterparts (Mason & Goulden, 2004; Wolfinger et al., 2008). The
authors also conclude that gender equity is multifaceted and that focusing only on economic or
professional outcomes fails to take into account a life-course approach to gender equity.
Results from studies like these that are related to gendered social norms and the ways in
which organizational and societal constructs make inequities difficult to change are cited as the
reasons that women decide to step down (or not pursue) tenure track positions or to transition
to more flexible positions either within or outside the academy. Monroe and Chiu (2010) state
that the glass ceiling in higher education is more akin to a series of barriers throughout a female
academic’s career. Wolfinger et al. (2008) describe the pipeline toward full professor positions
and leadership to be one in which women leave before achieving their career aspirations.
Prestige Maximization in Higher Education
Unlike being able to determine the quality of a piece of furniture by touching and
inspecting it, students and families cannot properly assess the quality of an institution of higher
education prior to making a decision to attend. Higher education is often a one-time investment
decision and the return on that investment is not measurable by the consumer until it is too late
to alter the decision. In such a marketplace, there exists information asymmetry between the
seller and the buyer, just as there is in the used car market, where the salesperson knows more
about what is under the hood than the buyer does (Akerlof, 1970). When there is asymmetry in
the market, reputation and prestige are two ways in which institutions can signal quality and
attract customers (Brewer et al., 2002; Spence, 1973). Reputation and prestige are “assets that
allow institutions of higher education to convey nonprice information to customers,”(Brewer et
31
al., 2002, p. 27). Reputation can be either positive or negative and is related to the ways in
which an institution consistently meets a specific set of demands (Brewer et al., 2002). For
example, students entering a school may seek to understand its reputation in job placement by
looking at historical job placement data. Prestige, on the other hand, is always positive, tends to
be intangible, and takes time to build and gain and lose (Blackmore, 2015;
Brewer et al, 2002).
Brewer et al. (2002) used qualitative and quantitative data to study the strategic
behavior of institutions with respect to prestige and their study provides a framework for
understanding and measuring institutional prestige in higher education. The researchers
conducted site visits at 26 institutions and interviewed students, administrators, and faculty.
The authors tried to capture the diversity of two-year and four-year degree granting institutions
across the country and their sample sites covered all U.S. geographic regions; a range of size
from small to large; urban, suburban, and rural designations; religious and secular schools; a
range of school types including community colleges, comprehensive public institutions, liberal
arts colleges, elite institutions, and for-profit institutions. The authors provide a framework for
understanding and defining prestige that provides the backbone for this section of the
literature review and for the independent variables used in the study.
Prestige is not an absolute concept, but rather must be measured relative to others and
can be qualified in differing ways. For example, a specialized performing arts school may choose
to operate in a segment of the market and hold prestige in only in that market. To further the
complexity of prestige, it must be bestowed by peers – the U.S. News and World Report
rankings of colleges and universities, for example, surveys school officials to rank their peer
32
institutions (Morse & Brooks, 2023). Sometimes characteristics of an institution, such as sports
teams or ivy-covered buildings, become associated with prestige even though they do not relate
to the quality of the institution’s education (Brewer et al., 2002). Prestige can be signaled
through the acquisition of things that demonstrate high quality. Over time, customers start to
develop “a general sense” (Brewer et al., 2002, p. 28) of which institutions consistently perform
to an expectation of prestige. Brewer et al. (2002) observe that prestige tends to be enduring,
partially because outcomes are observed after a long period of time. At private prestigious
research universities, income generated from large endowments provides a financial advantage
in the competition for prestige, for example by providing more student services and higher
faculty salaries. Having prestige can build donor trust which, in turn, can lead to a vicarious cycle
of more private giving (Blackmore, 2015; Brewer et al., 2002). Some aspects of higher
education, construction, for example, has a strong relationship to private giving – providing the
opportunity for donors to dedicate and name new state-of-the-art buildings.
One way to begin to unpack prestige is to take an economic perspective – higher
education is a competitive marketplace and prestige is a rival good, “one institution’s
consumption of a unit of a good precludes another from enjoying that particular unit,” (Brewer
et al., 2002, p. 30). While perhaps not true at all times, in general, when one institution gains
prestige, it comes at the expense of another either by acquiring or being able to acquire the
same prestige. Rankings provide a good example – when one university rises, another falls.
Stocks of prestige can be characterized as being measured relative to others, defined by peers,
persist over time and depreciate slowly, and as a zero-sum game (Brewer et al., 2002).
33
The higher education sector is a competitive marketplace where institutions compete
with each other in various forms of revenue – student tuition, public and private dollars, for
example. Unlike for-profit firms, where maximizing profit is a large metric by which success is
measured, most institutions of higher education are nonprofit organizations that do not return
profit to stakeholders. Instead the decision processes and priorities in higher education may be
described as prestige maximizing (Brewer et al., 2002; Garvin, 1980; Hoenack & Collins, 1990).
The economics of higher education are complex because institutions behave both like firms and
like charitable organizations (Melguizo & Strober, 2007); they compete for both revenue and
prestige (Taylor & Cantwell, 2019). The strategies by which institutions prioritize and invest in
revenue generating activities as compared to prestige generating activities shapes the higher
education environment as leaders balance the interplay of financial viability and institutional
prestige.
Higher education institutions use academic stratification as a means to signal legitimacy
to their key stakeholders, including the public and policymakers (Winston, 1999). Status within
the field of higher education is structured in both a hierarchical manner and a segmented
manner (Rosinger et al., 2016). Rankings such as the annual U.S. News and World Report’s Best
Colleges reports (Morse & Brooks, 2023) provide a hierarchical framework, whereas the
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.) provides a segmented
framework. Even within higher education institutions, status is ranked both hierarchically
(professorial rank, for example) and in a segmented manner (departmental resource allocation,
for example). While seeking legitimacy has a homogenizing effect, seeking prestige tends to
have more of a differentiating effect, where institutions with higher status “jettison status
34
markers” as they compete to stay at the top (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008 p. 61). This
competition for status, tends to be most intense at the higher ranks of the hierarchy (Bowman
& Bastedo, 2009).
While the Carnegie classification system is not a ranking system it has “served as a
prestige barometer” because it uses measurable indicators of prestige (e.g. research dollars) in
order to form the classification (Morphew & Baker, 2004, p. 368). Being classified as a research
institution represents an honorific status in higher education which in turn can yield benefits
such as additional philanthropic dollars, higher selectivity, and increased state and federal
investment (Bowman & Bastedo, 2009; McClure & Titus, 2018; O’Meara, 2007). With strategic
re-investment of revenue from prestige, institutions can enter a virtuous cycle of prestige and
resources (McClure & Titus, 2018).
While it is important to understand both an institution’s current position and an
institution’s strategic vision in order to understand its relationship to prestige, the measures of
prestige outlined below provide a structure to identify quantitative measures of prestige. An
institution’s relative prestige can be studied by investigating how an institution invests its
resources; what resources the institution acquires; and classification and ranking systems. First,
institutions can invest in “prestige generators,” (Brewer et al., 2002 p. 31), student quality,
research, and sports. Second, institutions may signal prestige through acquiring resources, such
as large donations from philanthropists. And finally, prestige is achieved by rising up through
ranking systems or into more prestigious categories. Each of these three areas is described
below followed by a synthesis in Table 7.
35
Investment of Resources in Prestige Generators
A strategic decision that institutions of higher education face is whether to allocate any
revenue dollars to activities that increase their prestige relative to their peers. In order to
improve prestige, institutions invest in areas that are likely to improve one (or more) of three
prestige generating areas - student quality markers, research metrics, and sports prowess.
Institutions vary in their approaches on whether they compete on one or all three of these
markers and may even change approaches throughout time based on market forces (Blackmore
& Kandiko, 2011, Brewer et al., 2002).
In the competition for undergraduate students, selectivity in admissions serves as a
means for institutions to build and uphold their prestige (Brewer et al., 2002). An institution’s
ability to provide financial aid gives them an advantage in boosting selectivity by allowing them
to be selective without being reliant on tuition-paying students. This strategy to attract the top
students can be further reinforced by investments in merit scholarships and improved
classroom and dorm facilities. Measures of prestige, such as high SAT/ACT scores, admissions
selectivity, and rankings in publications like U.S. News contribute to an institution's overall
reputation in the academic landscape. By carefully curating their student body and making
strategic investments, higher education institutions bolster their image and standing within the
academic landscape (Blackmore, 2015; Brewer et al, 2002; Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006). The
second prestige generator, research, has a significantly high cost of entry. Boosting
competitiveness for research requires that an institution invest in the research infrastructure
necessary to attract faculty who are capable of conducting the research and securing prestige
through recognition by their peers, whether through scholarly works or securing research
36
funding. The infrastructure required varies across disciplines, further increasing the cost to
maintain competitiveness of a research institution. One major component of this infrastructure
is Ph.D. programs that attract graduate students, which further enhance an institution’s
competitive position for research. Research institutions can invest in prestige through
recruitment of faculty with a research record, investments in laboratory and research facilities,
and growth and enhancement of Ph.D. programs. Measures of research prestige include the
volume of research grants, National Research Council Rankings, having a research designation
under the Carnegie Classification system, or being classified as one of the nation’s leading
research universities with membership in in the Association of American Universities (AAU,
n.d.,
Blackmore, 2015; Brewer et al., 2002).
Sports, the third prestige generator, holds the opportunity for significant revenue
generation and name recognition (Brewer et al., 2002) College sports generate revenue through
ticket sales, merchandise, and television and advertising revenue. Furthermore, name
recognition from strengths in sports spills over into other areas such as student enrollment,
public funding, and philanthropic gifts. Institutions can invest in sports through player
scholarships, well compensated coaches, training facilities, and stadiums and arenas. Measures
of prestige in sports include national sports rankings and polls, being classified with Division 1
teams, and inclusion in a prominent collegiate athletic conference, for example, the ACC, Big
Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, or the SEC, (Brewer et al., 2002). Institutional prestige variables are broken
down in Table 7 by prestige generator (student selectivity, research, or sports) and areas of
strategic investment.
37
Table 7
Institutional prestige variables by prestige generator and area of strategic investment
Prestige
Generator Areas of Strategic Investment Prestige Variables
Student • Financial aid
Selectivity • Merit scholarships
•Attracting students – e.g. improving classrooms,
dorms,
and recreational facilities
Research • PhD Programs
• Faculty with research records
• Labs and research facilities
• Research integrity and
compliance infrastructure and
staff
Sports
•
•
•
Player scholarships
Well-compensated coaches
Training facilities
• Stadiums and arenas
•Student Selectivity
•SAT/ACT Scores
•Admissions Selectivity
•U.S. News and World Report
College and University
Rankings
•Volume of research grants
•National Research Council
rankings
•Carnegie Research
Classification
•Membership in the
Association of American
Universities (AAU)
•National sports rankings and
polls
•Division 1 teams
•Membership in a prominent
collegiate athletic conference
o ACC: Atlantic Coast
Conference o
Big Ten o Big 12 o
Pac-12
•SEC: South Eastern
Conference
Through their research, Brewer et al., (2002), identified three categories of institutions:
prestige (P), prestige-seeking (PS), and reputation-based (R). Some institutions were a hybrid of
prestige seeking and reputation-based (PS-R). Institutions that fell into the P category had an
internal focus on continuing to maintain excellence and improve quality. These institutions were
38
not actively engaged in prestige seeking activities and made conservative investments, making
marginal changes. Brewer et al. (2002) characterized these institutions as “not actively engaged
in building a market for their services or increasing the number of potential customers but vying
for a growing share of a market that already exists” (P. 41). Institutions in the PS category had an
external focus whereby they often compared themselves to a peer-group and an aspirational
peer group. These institutions were making investments in building prestige and measuring
performance through external metrics such as U.S. News and World Report Rankings, the
amount of federal research funding, and Carnegie Classification. These institutions also used
National Research Council Rankings, the number of awards won by faculty or alumni, or student
metrics such as SAT scores as indicators of success. Reputation-based, R, institutions were not
operating in the prestige market. They tended to be student-centric and “focused on meeting
the identifiable demands of customers,” (Brewer et al., 2002, p. 43). Two of the institutions in
Brewer et al.’s study were a hybrid of PS-R, and these institutions held clearly defined
components of both PS and R institutions. These institutions reinforced the premise that
institutions can, with respect to prestige, chose to operate in specific market segments.
Prestige and Gender
In the prestige economy of higher education, gender and prestige intersect at the
individual faculty level in relation to tenure and promotion. Promotion in the professoriate relies
heavily on productivity (Baker, 2012). While professional academic roles typically include
research, teaching, and service, the prestige economy of higher education favors research
revenue, particularly revenue from external sources, over tuition revenue generated from
teaching students (Rosinger et al., 2016). Success and status in the prestige economy are not
39
achieved through the university’s teaching or service mission, but through individual pursuits of
competing for external grants and publishing in elite journals (Kwiek, 2020). As stated by Bain
and Cummings (2000), “while much of the work of universities involves teaching, few
universities of distinction place substantial weight on teaching proficiency when considering
candidates for recruitment or promotion” (p. 498).
Perna (2001), used data from the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty to
examine the probability of tenue in relation to gender (as described in more detail above) and
concluded that the probability of a tenured faculty member being promoted to the full
professor level was greatest when the faculty member spent over 25% of their time on
research, less time teaching, and over 10% of their time on administration. In an international
study of the underrepresentation of women leaders in the academy, Morley (2014) combined
existing empirical data to better understand enablers, barriers, and attraction for women and
leadership positions in the academy. Morley (2014) stated, “research performance is implicitly
associated with the prestige economy in higher education and is a pathway to academic
seniority and indicator for promotion” (p. 116).
Winslow (2010) studied male and female faculty members’ preferences for time
allocation between teaching and research and then compared those preferences to actual time
allocations. Using data from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, Winslow (2010)
concluded that women had a greater preference for teaching than men and that women did
spend more of their time teaching than men did. Winslow (2010) also concluded that the
mismatch between preferred and actual time allocations was significantly greater for women
than men and that this discrepancy could not be explained by preferences. In a qualitative study
40
Kandiko Howson et al. (2018) conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with mid-career
academic women and concluded that women understood the nature of the prestige economy,
but were less interested in actively pursuing prestige. As a result, there are fewer women in
higher education leadership than one would expect.
Summary
Understanding gender in the academy involves many complexities including individual
preferences and choices; long-standing gender norms in society and the academy; and the
culture, climate, and demographics of the institutional environment. Institutions make strategic
decisions in relation to their priorities and goals and they must decide how to invest any excess
revenue - whether through investing in reputation, prestige, savings through adding to the
endowment, or through additional consumption like higher salaries or smaller class sizes
(Brewer et al., 2002). For research institutions, prestige maximization is interwoven into
organizational structures and strategic planning. At the same time, institutions are recognizing
the challenges that women have faced in achieving full professor and leadership ranks and are
implementing practices to improve representation. There remains a gap in our understanding of
the ways in which these two strategies intersect, presenting an opportunity for further
investigation. The study proposed here, grounded in theory, and informed by existing research,
will bring new insights to this intersecting area of faculty gender equity and institutional
prestige.
41
