Abstract
This research highlights the voices of 103 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) women in academia who responded to a series of open-ended questions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on their work and tenure. The current study also sought to compare these responses to similar questions that were collected a year prior (n = 84) during the earliest months of the pandemic (Dunn et al., 2022). Consensual qualitative research-modified (CQR-M; Spangler et al., 2011) was utilized to analyze the data. The main findings reveal substantial concerns about the pandemic’s negative impact on academic work, highlighting research disruptions, difficulty balancing demands on time (e.g., extra responsibilities at work, navigating work and family conflicts), impacts on mental health and burnout for women faculty in STEM, and an increase in negative effects from 2020 to 2021. Clinical implications, future research directions, and social advocacy interventions in the context of COVID-19 will be discussed.
Keywords
The Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic exacerbated sociocultural inequities across various work sectors in the United States, including marked gender discrepancies among women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) academic positions. The current findings highlight the substantial challenges faced by postsecondary women faculty during the pandemic, including the present and lasting negative impacts on their academic work, progression towards tenure, work and life balance, and mental health. Notably, these negative effects were found to increase as the pandemic went on. Participants also identified helpful supports at the institutional and personal level, outlined supports that are still needed, and considered how their approach to work and the work–family interface might change moving forward.Significance of Scholarship to the Public
Introduction
The Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) global pandemic altered the work–life landscape of higher education and exacerbated preexisting gender inequalities in the academy (Gabster et al., 2020). Women across academic fields have encountered rising gender-based demands in their professional workloads and personal lives (Bender et al., 2021); subsequently, their research productivity has declined (King & Frederickson, 2021). For postsecondary women faculty in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), gender inequality and workplace discrimination has been present for years (McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018); moreover, women have been disproportionately impacted by the complications of COVID-19 (e.g., assignment of service work to junior women faculty and increased childcare demands), further disadvantaging them in the workforce (Gabster et al., 2020). These workload changes resulted in reduced time for research (Pereira, 2021), reflected in declining productivity metrics for women STEM faculty in general, and particularly those with young children (Dunn et al., 2022). This places untenured women’s academic careers at risk, considering the importance of research productivity for tenure and promotion. Given that pre-COVID-19 research identified the pretenure stage as a significant leak in the pipeline for women STEM faculty (e.g., Goulden et al., 2011), understanding how this career stage may be additionally impacted by pandemic-related career vulnerabilities is warranted. The current study sought to examine the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on untenured and recently tenured women in STEM academia with particular attention to “long haul” COVID-19 effects in academia, specifically the unique barriers, utilized supports, needed supports, and lasting effects of the pandemic on women faculty in STEM. Additionally, the present study explored how these categories aligned with data collected from the same cohort at the start of the pandemic.
An increased focus on equity and representation of women in STEM generally, and in academia specifically, has led to various policy and intervention recommendations, as well as a recent increase in women's participation in STEM education (e.g., Casad et al., 2021; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2020). However, women largely remain underrepresented in both STEM educational attainment and faculty positions. Although women earned 52.3% of science doctorate degrees in 2019 (National Science Board [NSB], 2022), they made up only 42.1% of tenure-track STEM faculty and 31.6% of tenured STEM faculty (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES], 2021). These data highlight a phenomenon termed the “leaky pipeline” of women in STEM academia, such that there are fewer women represented at each successive career stage leading to tenure attainment (e.g., Goulden et al., 2011).
Women of Color are particularly underrepresented in STEM. For example, Black women comprise 12.5% of U.S. women, 8.1% of total women earning science doctorate degrees, and 4.4% of tenure-track women in science; Hispanic women comprise 18.4% of U.S. women, 6.5% of women earning science doctorate degrees, and 7.1% of tenure-track women in science; and American Indian and Alaska Native women comprise 1% of U.S. women, 0.3% of women earning science doctorates, and 0.3% of tenure-track women in science. In contrast, Asian women comprise 6% of U.S. women, 7.1% of women earning science doctorates, and 16.7% of tenure-track women in science (NCSES, 2021; NSB, 2022).
Moreover, representation differs amongst disciplines. Women comprise approximately one-fifth of tenure-track faculty in computer and information science, one-quarter in engineering, and one-third in math and physical sciences, although they represent nearly half (43.1%) in biology, agricultural, and life sciences positions (NCSES, 2021). Given this variability and the inadequate representation in many disciplines, there is a continued need for interventions that increase equality in educational and academic STEM settings for women, especially women of Color.
General Barriers for Academic Women in STEM
Women experience a range of barriers in STEM tenure-track faculty positions as a result of underrepresentation (e.g., Domingo et al., 2022), sexism (e.g., Ysseldyk et al., 2019), and aspects of the work environment and policies (e.g., Casad et al., 2021; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016; Xu & Martin, 2011). Women in faculty roles were more likely to perceive being excluded from informal interactions with colleagues (Maranto & Griffin, 2011) and perceived their department as less collegial (Riffle et al., 2013) compared to their male colleagues. Experiences of sexism also serve as a barrier for women in tenure-track STEM faculty positions. Women have reported exposure to sexist stereotypes (Gregor et al., 2022; Ysseldyk et al., 2019), and for women of Color, harmful racial stereotypes (Charleston et al., 2014; Kachchaf et al., 2015). Women in STEM faculty positions have also expressed concerns about fairness and perceived sexism in tenure decisions (Bartel et al., 2017; Riffle et al., 2013), as well as unfair distribution of department or university resources favoring men (Bartel et al., 2017). Further, women STEM faculty have identified perceived gender disparities in teaching loads and service responsibilities (e.g., advising, mentorship, and committees; Domingo et al., 2022; Riffle et al., 2013). As many contextual aspects of academia shifted during COVID-19, it is crucial to understand how women in STEM have experienced their work environments during the pandemic.
Prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, women in tenure-track STEM faculty positions already faced unique barriers related to work–life balance, with family formation being hypothesized as one of the largest contributors to leaks in the pipeline (Goulden et al., 2011). Many women in previous qualitative research studies discussed the need to choose between work and family, postpone having children, or opt out of academia (Dunn et al., 2022; Kachchaf et al., 2015; McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018; Ysseldyk et al., 2019). Tenure-track women faculty appear less likely to report having children compared to their male counterparts, and women faculty with children reported fewer children on average than male faculty (1.8 versus 2.2, respectively; Morgan et al., 2021). Moreover, Morgan et al. (2021) highlight that the annual productivity of mothers decreases immediately after childbirth compared to nonmothers or men.
Previous research has identified similar negative career consequences for academic mothers, including reduced productivity and delayed promotion (McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016), limitations on conference travel (Drew & Marshall, 2021), and limited participation in informal networks (Xu & Martin, 2011). Additionally, women STEM faculty are more likely to take parental leave (Drew & Marshall, 2021) and report higher responsibility for household care (Bartel et al., 2017) than their male counterparts. In the tenure process, gaps in productivity resulting from maternity leave may be questioned or punished, thus negatively impacting career advancement (Bartel et al., 2017; McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018).
General Supports for Women in STEM
Previous research has also highlighted contextual and institutional supports in place for women faculty in STEM. Women mentors and support from colleagues generally provide important sources of support for faculty (Ysseldyk et al., 2019). For women faculty in STEM, mentor and colleague support offers valuable emotional care and assistance for work-related tasks (Gregor et al., 2022), and long-lasting mentoring relationships with other women may provide a supportive space to discuss work–family balance and experiences of sexism (Dunn et al., 2022). Further, institutional support for work–life balance and having a family has been found to predict job satisfaction and workplace belonging (Moors et al., 2014), as well as career aspirations for STEM women faculty (Gregor et al., 2021). In a qualitative study on tenure experiences for women faculty in STEM, general supportiveness of department and college leadership toward tenure, and a sense that those in leadership want them to succeed was also described as important (Gregor et al., 2022).
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has both intensified these existing challenges and created new barriers for women academics in STEM. In the workplace, junior women faculty have been tasked with increased teaching responsibilities and additional service work (Kasymova et al., 2021; Minello et al., 2021). Additionally, women academics of Color have performed significant invisible labor combatting both the health crisis and increased racial violence, facing systemic racism in the academy while managing emotions of their White colleagues (Melaku & Beeman, 2022). The expectation that women academics will fill these caregiving and support roles reflects sociocultural gender norms (Minello et al., 2021) and places an inordinate responsibility on the small number of women in STEM departments (Casad et al., 2021). These time and energy-draining roles leave fewer free hours for women to engage in their own scholarship, thus creating a barrier to tenure and career advancement (Gabster et al., 2020; Pereira, 2021).
Increased caregiving expectations have been present in the home too, as women academics perform a disproportionate share of childcare and domestic responsibilities (Kasymova et al., 2021). The absence of childcare acutely hindered academic productivity for STEM women in the early days of the pandemic (Dunn et al., 2022), and continues to be a source of strain for academic women (Bender et al., 2021; Lufler & McNulty, 2022; Pereira, 2021). Women without children have also experienced diminished productivity and engaged in more unpaid domestic labor than they did prepandemic (King & Frederickson, 2021). In the face of amplified gendered expectations, women in the STEM academy have grappled with the incompatibility between being a scientist and being a woman (Gregor et al., 2022) and coped with guilt over an inability to meet demands in multiple roles (Walters et al., 2021). The resulting negative mental health outcomes have implications for the personal well-being of these junior academics, as well as their persistence in the academy (Lufler & McNulty, 2022).
Theoretical Underpinnings
The psychology of working theory (PWT; Duffy et al., 2016) offers a useful theoretical framework for understanding the experiences of women STEM faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic. The theory emphasizes social justice and intersectionality through consideration of how marginalization, privilege, and identity are related to work experiences. PWT focuses on decent work, defined as work that provides a safe working environment; adequate time for rest outside of work; adequate compensation and health care; and alignment of organizational, family, and social values. Experiences of marginalization and economic constraint are hypothesized to predict decent work, and work volition and career adaptability are expected to mediate these relationships. Decent work is then expected to predict fulfillment of survival, social connection, and self-determination needs, which predict work-fulfillment and well-being (Duffy et al., 2016).
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing marginalization and economic constraints for academic women in STEM, thus impacting access to decent work (Autin et al., 2020). For example, experiences of sexism and racism within academic institutions evoke a lack of safety in work environments and create barriers to the career accomplishments necessary for tenure and promotion (e.g., Domingo et al., 2022; Gregor et al., 2022; Ysseldyk et al., 2019). Previous qualitative research with this population also highlighted exacerbated marginalization across the work–family interface, as work and family roles interfere with each other to the detriment of both domains (Dunn et al., 2022). For instance, the unpaid nature of various caregiving roles (which, for many women, increased during the pandemic; Kasymova et al., 2021) may be perceived as an economic constraint that makes maintaining decent work in academia more difficult. Consistent with PWT, lack of access to resources that can reduce this barrier (e.g., childcare and housekeeping services) may present a significant economic constraint for junior faculty.
Additionally, exclusion from informal networks that are invaluable for career and emotional support (Xu & Martin, 2011) represents both marginalization and low fulfillment of social needs for early-career professionals. Many of these barriers impact accomplishments needed for tenure, and without tenure, academic women in STEM ultimately lose their access to decent work in higher education and face other negative consequences suggested by PWT (e.g., lack of survival needs, poorer well-being). Further, subjective social status is similar to economic constraints in its association with negative well-being and work-fulfillment outcomes (England et al., 2020). Women without tenure in STEM fields may experience an intersectional disadvantage of gender and seniority. Given these challenges, it is unsurprising that women in STEM tenure-track faculty positions report negative impacts on their mental health (Gregor et al., 2022; Ysseldyk et al., 2019). In line with NASEM’s (2021) report and their subsequent call to explore the pandemic’s long-term impact on the careers of women in STEM, further exploration of women in STEM faculty positions is warranted.
The Current Study
The current study sought to extend the vocational psychology literature by utilizing consensual qualitative research-modified (CQR-M; Spangler et al., 2011), a novel analytical and methodological discovery-oriented approach, to examine the continued impact of COVID-19 on untenured and recently tenured women in STEM academia. In particular, the current study sought to examine the current barriers, supports, and ways in which participants shifted their perspectives on work and family as a result of living through the first year of the pandemic. Additionally, the study sought to compare these results with data collected from the same cohort of women during the first month of lock-down following the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the United States (Dunn et al., 2022). The aim was to elucidate how the pandemic affected participants’ existing marginalization in STEM and to highlight continued needed resources that might better facilitate social justice advocacy efforts, in light of the demonstrated differential impacts for women in higher education (e.g., Riffle et al., 2013; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016).
Method
Participants
The sample collected in 2021 (Time 2) included 103 women in academic STEM positions. Of the 181 participants who consented to annual follow-up as part of a larger longitudinal study, 118 accessed the survey, and 105 participants completed the open response questions (response rate 58%). Two participants were removed who completed the prompts due to indicating having left academia. The participants had an average age of 38.8 years (SD = 4.7), identifying as White, non-Hispanic (78.4%), Hispanic/Latino (9.8%), Asian/Asian American (6.9%), Biracial (2.9%), and Other (2%). The majority were heterosexual (88.2%), married (76.5%), and had children (64.7%). Of those with children, the majority reported having one (34.8%) or two (54.5%) children, with the majority of children being under the age of 8 years (84.8%). The participants represented a diverse range of STEM fields, with most indicating that they were employed in a public or private doctoral-level research institution (55.9%) with high research productivity levels (59.8%), worked 40 to 60 hours a week (86.3%), and were located in the Midwest (72.5%). Specifically, the STEM fields represented by participants included biological and agricultural science (52%); engineering (16.7%); earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences (14.7%); physical sciences (7.8%); mathematics and computer sciences (5%); and other (4%). A majority of participants had been in their current tenure-track position for five to seven years (58.8%) and had recently gone up for tenure within the last two years (52%). Of those who went up for tenure, 81% were granted tenure.
The sample collected in 2020 (Time 1) had an average age of 34.7 years (SD = 4.4), identified as White, non-Hispanic (80%), Hispanic/Latino (11%), Asian/Asian American (5%), Biracial (2%), African American (1%), and Other (1%). The majority were heterosexual (92%), married (70%), and had children (55%). The participants represented a diverse range of STEM fields, with a majority indicating that they were in their first faculty job (87%), were employed in a public or private doctoral-level research institution (63%) with high research productivity levels (defined as research prioritized over teaching; 61%), working 40 to 60 hours a week (86%), and were located in the Midwest (79%). The majority had not gone up for tenure (92%), and of those who indicated that they had gone up for tenure (86%) were still in the process, and the remaining 14% were not granted tenure. For a detailed breakdown of participant demographics from data collected in 2020, please see Dunn et al. (2022).
Procedures
This study was part of a larger longitudinal project which collects data yearly on a cohort of untenured and recently tenured STEM faculty (for more information, including recruitment methods, please see Gregor et al., 2021). This longitudinal research began in 2018 with the intention of following the cohort for 5 years during their tenure progression. The larger longitudinal project focuses on a battery of self-report quantitative measures used to track anticipated predictors of tenure; however, our aim with each follow-up was also to include brief open-ended questions examining participants’ experiences of work and tenure during this unique period of career development. When the pandemic began in 2020, it became increasingly clear that COVID-19 would impact work and tenure progression, which led to the development of the open-ended questions surrounding barriers, supports, and work–life integration during the pandemic being included in the 2020 follow-up (i.e., Gregor et al., 2021). The current study offered an opportunity to examine how those experiences changed over time by repeating the open-ended questions.
Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, participants who originally consented to participate in the longitudinal study were invited by email to complete the online survey which included the aforementioned quantitative measures and a set of open-ended questions that were used for qualitative analysis. The current study reflects data that were collected at two time points. The most recent data were collected during the spring of 2021, approximately 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic. The comparison data was collected within the first month of the first wave of the pandemic in April 2020, when nearly all higher education institutions had moved to remote learning and teaching. Both data sets reflect participants from the larger cohort, but not all participants participated in both follow-ups. Thus, data is compared as a group rather than on an individual basis.
Measures
Demographics
During both time points, data on participants’ age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, relationship status, work status, number and ages of children, and characteristics of their current employment (i.e., employment age, field, location, hours, and research expectations) were collected.
Open-Ended Questions
During the 2021 data collection, participants responded to three open-ended questions developed by the authors to better understand the impact of COVID-19, 1 year into the pandemic. The questions reflected broad tenets of PWT (Duffy et al., 2016) and prior research on the work–family interface among tenure track women, inquiring about pathways to tenure, supports and barriers related to work as a tenure-track professor, and changes in work–family management during COVID-19. The questions were intentionally open-ended and did not prime the participants to reflect on specific aspects of PWT (e.g., marginalization), instead, allowing for participants’ voices to emerge naturally.
Participants were presented with the following questions: “(1) In reflecting on the last year, in what ways has your pathway to tenure (or if tenured, your work) been impacted by COVID-19?; (2) What supports have been useful, or are still needed during this time (either through the university or from other sources) to cope with the effects of COVID-19?; (3) In what ways will you, your work, or the management of work and family change in the future due to your experiences during COVID-19?” These questions mirror two questions asked during the 2020 time point, which included: “(1) How has your pathway to tenure been impacted by COVID-19? and (2) What supports have been useful, or would be useful, during this time (either through the university or from other sources) to cope with the effects of COVID-19?” The third question was added to allow participants to reflect on the lessons they had learned and the insight they had gained over the last year of the pandemic, given its unprecedented nature.
Data Analysis
CQR-M is a qualitative research method that was adapted from CQR (Hill et al., 1997). CQR-M borrows many tenants from CQR including a bottom-up approach and a collaborative and iterative coding process; however, it differs in the lack of participant contact and some aspects of coding (e.g., no core ideas, auditor, or labeling frequencies). CQR-M sacrifices the richness of individual participant data, but is ideal for analysis of large samples with relatively brief qualitative data. Consistent with recommendations by Levitt et al. (2018), consideration of methodological integrity, specifically fidelity to the subject matter, was given when selecting the best research design for achieving our research goals. Given the exploratory and discovery-oriented nature of the current study and the rapidly evolving effects of the pandemic on higher education, CQR-M (Spangler et al., 2011) was selected. Lastly, the authors followed the criteria of trustworthiness presented by Williams and Morrow (2009) which closely mirrors the procedures already defined by CQR-M, including a focus on establishing the integrity of the data, balancing the tension between subjectivity and reflexivity, and clearly communicating the findings.
Prior to the examination of data, and consistent with Levitt et al. (2018) and Spangler et al.’s (2011) recommendations, the coding team developed a list of their own biases. They identified expectations that some aspects of the pandemic might have grown more challenging, while others might have become more normative. In particular, the team noted an assumption that things would be harder for women with children, that there would be more frequent experiences of burnout, and that barriers to research would have increased. The team also noted that there might be an effect of adjustment to work from home or vaccine access in creating more positive experiences. The coding team had ongoing conversations about the impact of potential biases throughout the coding process. Additionally, the authors who participated in both studies were cognizant to not refer to the coding structure of the previous study (e.g., Dunn et al., 2022) during the creation of the initial coding structure or during the iterative coding process for Time 2. Authors were also asked to bracket biases that may have stemmed from participation in the previous study. Only after coding was completed for Time 2 did authors compare the results to Time 1.
Prior to coding, the first and fourth authors, who had previous experience with CQR-M, trained the coding team based on the recommendations of Spangler et al. (2011). Further following these recommendations, the first author reviewed the first 30 participants to develop a start list for domains and categories for data collected in 2021. The fourth author then reviewed the list of domains and categories and reviewed the data with the first author until consensus was reached for the first 30 participants. The coding team was then brought together to practice coding several transcripts. Three dyads separated after reaching high agreement among the larger team. Each individual independently reviewed responses before engaging in a consensus meeting with their partner. After dyadic consensus was reached, the first and fourth authors reviewed all codes before arriving at consensus as a team. Particular attention was paid to data that were ambiguous, difficult to code, or resulted in a change to the coding structure. This process was repeated 15 responses at a time until all data were coded. The domains and categories were adjusted throughout the coding process via consensus of the coding team. The data were then analyzed further to examine commonalities and differences in the data collected in 2021 compared to 2020. The team established a priori cutoff of 10% (i.e., a reported category must have had a net change of 10% or above from Time 1 to Time 2).
Coding Team
The coding team for the current qualitative data analysis consisted of six individuals: three cisgender women, early career professionals of counseling psychology (two White and one South Asian), two graduate students in counseling psychology (two cisgender White women) and one male South Asian American undergraduate psychology student. The first and last authors have experiences in academia and at the time of coding were both employed as assistant professors at mid-sized universities with young children. Additionally, the fourth author was previously employed as an assistant professor shortly before coding began, but she left her academic position to work in private practice during the coding process. Half of the current authors have personal experience in navigating the effects of COVID-19 on pursuing tenure and managing personal responsibilities. Additionally, most of the coding team (five of the six coders) have some research background surrounding the career development of women. Thus, many members of the coding team have both lived experiences and content knowledge influencing their analysis and interpretation of findings.
Results
Domains and Categories for Time 1 (n = 84), Time 2 (n = 103), and Percentage Change Between Time 1 and Time 2
Note. Bolded percentages indicate at or above a priori cutoff of 10%.
aIndicates data that was reanalyzed after the publication of the original manuscript (Dunn et al., 2022).
Impacts of COVID-19
The first domain included the diverse and ranging impacts that the pandemic had on women personally and professionally. The most common impacts that women identified were general research concerns (50%), childcare concerns (34%), and mental health struggles (32%). Within the role of work, women identified that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted practically all of their academic responsibilities. Research concerns were the most pervasive, as participants named general research concerns along with other research impacts including the loss of facilities, lab, or research materials (39%), reduced publication and presentation productivity (20%), grant and funding concerns (18%), and the long-haul effects that the pandemic would have on their research (16%). Several of these concerns likely represent the impact of economic constraints on universities resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, which influence the attainment of decent work (Duffy et al., 2016). One participant highlighted a number of these barriers, stating: “COVID shut down my research lab completely for four months and then severely limited the number of people who could be in the lab for the subsequent nine months.” Many women discussed how they felt it would take years to rebound from the losses to research, and they expressed concerns that this would not be considered by administration in tenure decisions. For example: “We will need evaluations to consider COVID-19 in the next two or three years, when the regular production pipeline of research work and the changes in teaching will show the real effects of the pandemic."
Participants also described how COVID-19 had impacted other roles within their work, noting in general how much extra time and effort it took to maintain productivity while managing extra responsibilities caused by the pandemic. This included limited time (14%), increased administrative/service work (11%), concerns around students in general (17%), as well as the expectation to support struggling students (14%). One participant said, “I have lost all time to think; I just keep my research, teaching, and service responsibilities afloat. I spend a great deal of time checking in with my students and staff to ensure they are ok… I am burnt out.” Participants also discussed how teaching had become more difficult, noting in particular the impact of trying to transition courses to online or blended modalities (23%; e.g., “The increased workload associated with online teaching has prevented me from participating in any of my research activities. I am currently putting in 70-hour work weeks just to keep up with the teaching load.”).
The pandemic’s effect on perceptions of work also extended to the role of administration and the institution. In particular, participants identified limited or no institutional support (20%), job security concerns (8%), as well as “business as usual” expectations for productivity (6%), which 6% of participants felt were particularly unfair to women academics. In the context of PWT, these concerns may represent a difference in values between the participants and their universities, as well as exacerbated marginalization experiences for women in STEM (Duffy et al., 2016). In two powerful quotes, participants noted, “What support? There was, and there is no support in sight. Not at the departmental level, at the College level, or at the Academic field level”; “They expect us to continue to be just as productive. When I set boundaries… because I am trying to work from home with kids, I always get feedback indicating I am not being a team player, and ‘everyone has it bad now.’” Participants also noted how the pandemic contributed to tenure concerns and disruptions (21%), with one participant stating, “Wow—it's completely gone now. Tenure isn't even on the table. The institution I was at is in the middle of collapse; I’m lucky to have gotten a position elsewhere.”
The pressure to maintain productivity and to continue to engage in work roles despite the pandemic also appeared in participants’ descriptions of how difficult it was to try to balance work and family conflicts, including both childcare (34%) and family concerns (14%), which are important aspects of decent work as conceptualized by PWT (Duffy et al., 2016). Additionally, participants highlighted how the multitude of personal and professional stressors negatively impacted their mental health (32%). Participants noted a multitude of mental health concerns including stress, exhaustion, lack of motivation, anxiety, and burnout, among others (e.g., “I'm totally burnt out... I need time off to recover my spirit. I need to rely less on myself, because everything has been on me and it has taken a huge toll on health and wellness.”) One participant identified all of these factors as they relate to her experience of burnout, stating: The emotional strain of taking on more of the "mental load" than I already was related to home/parenting and keeping our household functioning, grieving deaths, trying to support a spouse struggling with mental illness amplified by the pandemic, trying to support extended family and friends who are struggling, and trying to support students who are all struggling with their own COVID stories has taken a toll. I am less productive not only because I have had less time, but because I have no energy to be creative. I am burnt out.
Lastly, some participants indicated that they had not experienced a negative impact on their work (17%) or saw a positive impact (9%) during the pandemic. Some participants noted that the pandemic was useful due to the increase in remote work (13%; e.g., “One way in which COVID has made things easier is that I haven't had to do work travel.”). Others pointed out how the pandemic actually gave more attention to their field of study: “COVID-19 brought public awareness to my field (point-of-care diagnostics). My own research garnered public attention in [the] media and at my university.”
Current Helpful Supports
In general, current supports fell into the following four categories: institutional, research, teaching, and personal supports. The most commonly reported supports fell into the institutional category, which included general support and communication (25%), tenure clock and policy adjustments (23%), remote working options (18%), and colleague support (12%). Within PWT, these may represent alignment between organizational and personal values (an aspect of decent work) as well as the fulfillment of social needs (an outcome of decent work; Duffy et al., 2016). One participant mentioned these resources, stating: “I've appreciated how flexible the university has been. We've all gotten an extra year on our tenure clocks which I may or may not take; teaching reviews didn't count last spring, we're all working from home.”
Participants noted that there had also been some research and teaching support from their institutions at relatively low levels (less than 10% of the sample indicated these supports as helpful). Participants also infrequently acknowledged the use of personal supports, which included social support (10%), psychological and behavioral self-care (5%), and childcare (5%). Notably, being able to utilize these resources requires both access to adequate personal time outside of work (an aspect of decent work), and economic resources (a predictor of decent work; Duffy et al., 2016). Some women mentioned specific resources like support groups, therapy, and yoga; others named support from partners and friends (e.g., “The best support came from my spouse, who was always willing [and thankfully usually able] to trade off and watch the kids when I needed to teach or take care of other business. It's literally the only way I survived.”).
Needed Supports
In assessing the needed supports identified by participants, responses reflected institutional needs, adjusted tenure expectations, funding, and personal needs (including mental health and childcare resources). When examining the institutional needs, participants reported a need for increased support and communication for faculty and students (17%), acknowledgement of the impact of COVID-19 on productivity (11%), decreased workload expectations (11%), as well as continued remote working options (5%) and increased COVID-19 guidelines and safety precautions (6%). In general, participants reported feelings of frustration and disappointment with their university’s response to the pandemic and reported a need for a more systemic and thoughtful approach to faculty needs. For example, one woman wrote: “Would love to have [administration] actually be more understanding rather than just giving the option to postpone tenure. They also only really pay lip service and don't give any real value to faculty/staff other than patronizing emails.”
Some participants gave specific support suggestions, including course releases, increased logistical support, reduced service, reevaluating teaching evaluations, and flexibility to work from home. Faculty also reported a need for adjusted external or institutional funding or extensions (10%; e.g., “I need additional funding from funding agencies or the university to cover lost student productivity.”). Participants also discussed how the pandemic had affected their tenure pathway, stating that although tenure clock extensions were useful, ongoing policy adjustments (7%) and adjusted tenure criteria (6%) were imperative. Some faculty noted that adding an extra year to the tenure process would actually be harmful. One junior academic stated: I'm going up this summer, so an extension doesn't do much for me beyond delay my potential for a raise and stability. A course release or rotation off the teaching schedule for faculty with extenuating circumstances is one example of something that would really help faculty who had to take time away from work to care for young children at home, support elderly or sick parents, or deal with health conditions exacerbated by the pandemic.
Lastly, faculty discussed the need for mental health (9%) and childcare (6%) resources. For example, one participant voiced the contrast between what supports were available and what she needed: “[I] need friends and supportive colleagues. [I] need exercise and house cleaning, [I] need formal and informal childcare,” while another participant commented on the lack of mental health resources: “The faculty and students are under enormous stress. It would be great if there were more mental health resources available.”
Lasting Impacts
Responses in this category largely underscored the negotiation of work–family balance, with participants reporting a want for increased remote work (33%), increased self-care (22%), reduced self-imposed productivity expectations (e.g., focus on essential work activities, not going above and beyond; 21%), and gratitude for childcare/increased family prioritization (9%). These findings again highlight the need for adequate personal time outside of work as theorized by PWT (Duffy et al., 2016). One participant noted: I used to work every night and every weekend, but I am drawing more clear boundaries for my own sanity. The expectations of what I am supposed to get done are just too high so I am choosing to just do what I can. If that means I don't get tenure I am more ok with that than I was before the pandemic. I have felt at no time during the pandemic that I was a priority or supported by my university. In turn I no longer feel like I owe the university my free time and life.
Additionally, some participants discussed changes in their future work (16%) which included increased feelings of efficiency and positive teaching improvements. Few participants noted negative effects (5%), and others felt it was too soon to tell if the pandemic had any lasting effects (18%).
Sadly, in reflecting on how they felt changed by COVID-19, some faculty highlighted how it was hard to even answer the question (e.g., “This reflection I am not ready to do yet. I am not in a place where I can look back and see what I have learned. I am just trying to not sink.”). Others noted how the pandemic had left them exhausted, burnt-out, and disillusioned (14%) and had increased their thoughts of leaving academia (9%), with some (n = 4) indicating that they had already left academia prior to completing the survey. For example, one participant stated, “I realized that my institution does not care if I am run ragged... My family and health has suffered... I am reflecting on the things I value about my career and reprioritizing, and seeking employment elsewhere, potentially even outside of academia.” This quote and others like it highlighted the real consequences for women in STEM, and how the pandemic, combined with preexisting gender-based barriers, contributed to yet another leak in the academic pipeline for women already vulnerable to attrition.
2020 Versus 2021: Comparing Long-COVID-19 in Academia
As previously noted, participants were asked to reflect on their reactions to COVID-19 at two time points. The results above reflect the most recent examination of the impact that the pandemic had on STEM women academics in 2021 (Time 2). However, we also compared these results with the data that were collected one month into lockdown in 2020 (Time 1). In looking for important differences, Spangler et al. (2011) recommend the use of an a-priori 30% cutoff; however, we opted to use a 10% cutoff to be sensitive to nuanced changes in faculty perceptions, especially given the discovery-oriented nature of the study. In considering the unknown long-term effects of the pandemic, we opted to lower the cutoff as to not risk minimizing the changing experiences and needs of STEM academic women.
The needed supports category in the 2020 data (Dunn et al., 2022) was not initially analyzed for subcategories. This data was later reanalyzed for conference presentation to define subcategories of needed resources. This recoding occurred prior to the start of the current study’s data analysis (see noted subcategories in Table 1). We chose to include this data for a more accurate comparison with the 2021 data. Additionally, after codes were identified that met the 10% cutoff, indicating that a barrier had gotten worse in Time 2, chi-square tests of independence were used post hoc to determine if those categories (e.g., impacts on research, lack of time, supporting struggling students, and concerns with administration) were reported more frequently by women with additional barriers (e.g., women with children, women of Color, or those without tenure) in Time 2. Although no categories were reported more frequently than expected by women of Color, significant differences were found for women with children and those without tenure as discussed below.
Changes in the Impact of COVID-19 From 2020–2021
The results of this comparison revealed an overall bleak trend over the past year for academic women in STEM. For example, there was a substantial increase in the frequency of research impacts related to the impacts of COVID-19. General research concerns increased from 17% to 50% from Time 1 (2020) to Time 2 (2021), suggesting that research concerns went from bad to worse. This dramatic increase is particularly concerning given that participants were not asked about research concerns specifically. Additionally, “long haul COVID-19 research implications” were endorsed by 16% percent of participants, appearing as a new category during Time 2. This category was not mentioned by participants during Time 1, indicating a growing awareness around the ways the pandemic may continue to shape research outcomes. Post hoc chi-square results indicated that untenured faculty were significantly more likely to report these lasting research problems, as compared to their tenured colleagues X2(1, N = 102) = 5.53, p < .05. For academic women in STEM, research is a central component of the pathway to tenure, and this trend suggests that research problems intensified greatly over the course of just 1 year during the pandemic, thus potentially jeopardizing tenure and intensifying the leaky pipeline.
Also, two new categories related to competing time demands emerged one year into the pandemic: general time concerns and lack of time for research, specifically. This suggests that participants were more keenly aware of their lack of time for research, along with a general sense of not having enough time. Post hoc chi-square results indicated that academic women with children were significantly more likely to report a general lack of time compared to their colleagues without children, X2(1, N = 102) = 4.77, p < .05. These findings are unsurprising given the high frequency of women who had to navigate completion of work tasks while attending to their children at home, due to school and daycare closures. Also, while reports of the pandemic’s impact on faculty roles were largely consistent, there were some key differences. For example, while general student concerns decreased (27% at Time 1 compared to 17% at Time 2), a new category of supporting struggling students appeared in Time 2 (14%). This indicates a potential shift in the role of women faculty, as they provided not only additional academic support, but emotional and behavioral care to students. Interestingly, post hoc chi-square results indicated that women with children and women with tenure were significantly more likely to report the need to support struggling students compared to their childless, X2(1, N = 102) = 3.71, p < .05, and untenured, X2(1, N = 102) = 10.87, p < .05, colleagues. Women faculty are often expected to provide emotional labor to students at a higher degree than their male counterparts, and our results demonstrate that during the pandemic, providing additional support to struggling students may disproportionately affect female faculty with children. This, coupled with an already precarious work–life balance, likely contributes to an increasing invisible workload and a propensity toward burnout. Additionally, women with tenure may feel a stronger pressure to fill this support role, perhaps reflecting a reprioritization of values posttenure or a way to alleviate burdens from their untenured colleagues.
The pandemic also appears to have increased administrative and institutional concerns, which appeared as a new category, except for job security which appeared in Time 1. Particularly, at Time 2, faculty seemed more frustrated with an apparent lack of support and “business as usual” expectations, which appeared as new categories not discussed during Time 1. Supporting this alarming trend, women also discussed significant concerns about tenure disruptions (21%) in Time 2 that were not reflected in Time 1. The pandemic impacted the tenure pathway for an untold number of academics, and junior faculty in STEM described how the tenuous promotion pathway became even more nebulous and uncertain. COVID-19 safety concerns and unfair treatment of women also emerged as troubling new categories during Time 2. In further support of this trend, work and family conflict also remained high across both Time 1 and Time 2; however, a new category appeared in Time 2 reflecting nonchildcare related family concerns (14%). This group of women, already overburdened by childcare concerns, appeared to experience additional hardship related to extended family. These findings and concerning trends should be interpreted in the context of many similar concerns articulated by participants across both time points. Participants continued to articulate a host of negative changes related to the pandemic (e.g., disruptions in publication, lab concerns, and online teaching).
Changes in Current Supports from 2020–2021
Regarding current supports, data analysis patterns seem to reflect some shifts in needs. In general, participants reported similar needs for institutional support (e.g., general support, communication, tenure clock adjustments, etc.) across both years. One silver lining suggested university communication and general support seemed more common (25% at Time 2 compared to 15% at Time 1), as well as the new appearance of remote working options as useful in Time 2 (18%). This change may highlight that universities were able to pivot to offer more support and flexible working conditions related to COVID-19. However, some specific supports seem to have become less helpful or perhaps less common. For example, reporting of tenure clock and policy adjustments as being supportive dropped from 58% to 23%. Thus, women faculty in STEM may need additional changes related to tenure policy, as many reported that time extensions were not helpful and expressed a want for adjusted tenure criteria instead. Moreover, participants may be experiencing more isolation at work one year into the pandemic. Specifically, colleague support dropped from 35% to 12% from Time 1 to Time 2, respectively. It is possible that these changes reflect a burnout experience, with less connection to others at work perhaps a result of emotional exhaustion and isolation. Additionally, participants might have run out of data collected prior to the pandemic as they reported less support from research continuity compared to Time 1. While personal supports remained mostly the same, there was a slight drop in the supportiveness of psychological and behavioral self-care (only 5% in Time 2 versus 15% in Time 1) suggesting that the same supports which may have helped earlier in the pandemic were no longer as effective or perhaps not as needed. Reported mental health concerns dropped from 42% to 32% in Time 2, perhaps reflecting better coping overall.
Changes in Needed Supports from 2020–2021
When examining needed supports, the results reveal that many categories remained largely consistent. For instance, participants continued to articulate needs for increased acknowledgement of the impact of the pandemic on productivity, along with reduced workload expectations. However, there were some new categories that appeared in Time 2, including increased COVID-19 guidelines, safety precautions, and allowances for continued remote work, suggesting concerns about maintaining decent work from a PWT perspective (Duffy et al., 2016). Moreover, faculty reported increased need for institutional support and communication for faculty and students (17% at Time 2 versus 7% at Time 1), suggesting that as the pandemic continued to unfold, faculty reported a simultaneous increase in institutional support from the outset of the pandemic and an ongoing desire for more support moving forward.
To conclude, interpreted within the context of PWT (Duffy et al., 2016), the changes from 2020 to 2021 suggest that certain components of decent work have continued to erode. Specifically, participants faced increased barriers to key job tasks and a deteriorating alignment of organizational and personal needs, both of which impact progression towards tenure and job security. Moreover, these increased challenges were not felt ubiquitously, as a handful of categories discussed were reported at a higher frequency by women with children and untenured women. Participants’ voices highlighted experiences of marginalization, compounded by difficulty adapting to unreasonable career demands in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Discussion
The current findings highlight the substantial challenges faced by women faculty in STEM during the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents described the present and lasting negative impact of the pandemic on their academic work and path to tenure, identified helpful supports at the institutional and personal level, outlined supports that are still needed, and considered how their approach to work and the work–family interface might change moving forward. The present study also compared the results with data collected in April 2020 to identify similarities and differences in COVID-19’s impact on this cohort of academics. Overall, results reveal substantial concerns about the pandemic’s sustained impact on academic work and tenure disruptions, difficulty balancing demands, and enduring negative emotions. These long-haul effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have caused significant distress and exhaustion for tenure-track women in the STEM academy, a sentiment aptly captured by one participant who remarked, “I need a break or I might quit.”
The findings from this study can be interpreted in the context of PWT (Duffy et al., 2016). According to PWT, individuals’ experiences of work fulfillment and well-being are predicted by their engagement in decent work (e.g., employees have sufficient hours for rest outside of work and an alignment of organizational, family, and social values; Duffy et al., 2016). Our results indicate that the work contexts for many tenure-track women academics in STEM do not meet these conditions, and worse, suggest toxicity in academic environments that impact women’s social needs, work needs, and well-being. Participants reported exhaustion, mental health struggles, and significant difficulty maintaining productivity during the pandemic—experiences with serious implications for personal and professional outcomes. Women faculty described a notable lack of time for rest as work and family demands became untenable, and participants with children experienced worsened time constraints to complete responsibilities. Further, several participants noted that they had left academia or were considering a departure, naming the influence of unsupportive work environments on their decisions. These results support the connection between decent work, well-being, and work fulfillment as proposed by PWT (Duffy et al., 2016).
Many women attributed their negative outcomes to the pandemic’s impact on their work and work–life interface, describing difficulty in balancing their expanding responsibilities. These findings are consistent with other studies of academic women and mothers during (e.g., Bender et al., 2021; Kasymova et al., 2021; Walters et al., 2021) and prior to (e.g., McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018; Riffle et al., 2013) the COVID-19 crisis, indicating that feelings of overwhelm are associated with the escalating demands for many women in higher education. These findings also support the relationship between marginalization and decent work theorized by PWT, as the pandemic most significantly impacted already oppressed groups (e.g., Black women and working mothers; Melaku & Beeman, 2022). Participants highlighted increased family responsibilities resulting from the pandemic that made attaining work–life balance more difficult, aligning with prepandemic research that emphasized the gendered expectations for academic women’s caregiving (e.g., Bartel et al., 2017; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016). Further, the increased pressure to perform unpaid labor and service work (e.g., supporting students) among women with children reflects a gender normative expectation that work-related altruism is a necessary component of women’s careers (Pereira, 2021). Mothers who were already providing more caregiving at home encountered increased pressure to offer similar labor at work, draining their emotional reserves.
Concern about research was the most common experience reported by participants in this wave of data collection, reflecting a massive increase in the pandemic’s negative impact on scholarship. At Time 1, faculty were in a phase of acute crisis management and had little concept of how long the disruption would persist. However, after months of adjustment many academics became aware of the lasting impact of lab closures and diminished research productivity (Lufler & McNulty, 2022). The interruption of research is particularly salient for junior academics who need to demonstrate publication productivity for tenure, grant applications, and other forms of funding (Minello et al., 2021). Fears about job security, career advancement, and maintaining adequate compensation also pose a threat to these women’s experience of decent work via economic pressures (Duffy et al., 2016). Although this issue has been a frequent subject of empirical research during COVID-19, the most common support (i.e., tenure clock adjustments) remains an imperfect and controversial solution (Dunn et al., 2022; Pereira, 2021).
In general, many participants conveyed dissatisfaction with the personal and professional supports they used to cope with the pandemic’s impact. Some junior faculty identified the benefit of social support and helpful institutional practices (e.g., increased communication, policy adjustments, and remote working options); however, the overarching sentiment was that supports were insufficient to meet their needs. The lack of supportive practices in STEM academia for women and mothers predated the pandemic (Xu, 2008), and women faculty continue to identify the salience of this barrier (Bender et al., 2021; Lufler & McNulty, 2022). In short, the current findings suggest that support for tenure-track women in STEM deteriorated over the course of the pandemic, reflecting academic environments that went from chilly to frigid. This lack of support may also help to contextualize the increased mental health concerns and negative emotions reported by participants over time, as feelings of frustration, disappointment, and disillusionment increased for women faculty in the current study and across other research samples (e.g., Bender et al., 2021; Lufler & McNulty, 2022; Walters et al., 2021). These associations provide qualitative support for PWT’s proposed relationship between decent work, social connection, well-being, and work fulfillment (Duffy et al., 2016).
In addition to these negative emotions, academic women and mothers in this study reported persistent and elevated mental health concerns. Participants noted that caregiving and domestic labor left them feeling exhausted, resulting in less energy to engage in time-flexible academic work (i.e., research) and to practice self-care, consistent with findings from previous research (Bender et al., 2021; McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018; Lufler & McNulty, 2022). While flexibility in work hours does help women meet both work and family demands, the increase in remote work during the pandemic may also have exacerbated prepandemic pressure to complete work on evenings and weekends (Toffoletti & Starr, 2016). The conflicting desires to continue working and set boundaries may also evoke feelings of guilt. Walters et al. (2021) describe the prevalence of such guilt among academics who mother, defining guilt as a negative self-judgment based in the perceived failure to meet socially-imposed expectations. Whether this perceived failure is related to academic obligations, productivity expectations, or parenting decisions, guilt is draining and nearly impossible to resolve through increased work hours. Women in the current study conveyed feelings of guilt among other emotions, including anxiety, overwhelm, burnout, grief, and resentment. Some participants coped with these negative emotions and the incompatible demands on their time by setting stronger boundaries and reducing their self-imposed productivity expectations; however, others experienced disillusionment so intense they considered quitting.
Overall, these results point to an overarching theme of additive disadvantage for women academics in STEM fields. Higher education is structured around the patriarchal concept of an “ideal worker”—someone who is unburdened by caregiving responsibilities and willing to prioritize work over their personal life (McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018; NASEM, 2021). When women faculty enter the workforce, they face both the patriarchal notion that one must be independent to be productive and the neoliberal idea that success requires overworking oneself. Moreover, the junior faculty in the current study experienced lack of support and business-as-usual expectations, which potentially amplified the preexisting “chilly climate” for women in STEM (Maranto & Griffin, 2011), added a new layer of gender-based discrimination and intensified negative outcomes (Xu, 2008). This compounded disadvantage is added further for women with other oppressed identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, nationality, and/or ability status), a significant intersectional vulnerability that threatens women’s outcomes in STEM (Charleston et al., 2014; Melaku & Beeman, 2022; NASEM, 2021).
The results of the current study shed new light on the challenges and supports encountered by women STEM faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic. The comparison of women faculty’s experiences in 2020 and 2021 provides a novel contribution to the literature, elucidating the changes that have occurred in this unprecedented time and the differential impact based on various identity factors. Women described improved communication from their institutions and benefits associated with remote work; however, they continued to indicate high work–family conflict and concerns about research. Those without tenure reported increased research concerns, while women with children described a chronic lack of time and increased pressure to support struggling students. Further, 1 year into the pandemic, women described the lessons they’d learned, ranging from a positive reprioritization of values to a broad disillusionment with academia. Our findings highlight the importance of attending to the concerns of junior women faculty in STEM, as increased demands on their time have created untenable environments that threaten their persistence in the field.
Implications for Practice, Advocacy, Education, Training, and Research
Findings from the current study have implications for the work of counseling psychologists, particularly considering the field’s commitment to social justice (Altmaier & Ali, 2012). The alarming persistence of mental health concerns in the present study points to a need for improved mental health resources for STEM faculty. Participants’ heightened distress is likely related to the excessive workload, job insecurity, inadequate resources, and isolation faced by academics (Urbina-Garcia, 2020). Counseling psychologists engaged in clinical work with women in STEM fields should first strive to understand how unsupportive workplace climates and discrimination contribute to their clients’ distress (England et al., 2020).
Further, Blustein et al. (2019) developed a framework for the practical application of PWT, which may be a useful guide for therapeutic work with STEM women faculty. They suggest that clinicians start with an assessment of their client’s basic survival needs, social connections, and ability to practice self-determination—each essential for promoting well-being and work fulfillment. When absent, therapy should prioritize helping clients secure these foundational needs; then, clinicians can turn their attention to systems-level factors (Blustein et al., 2019). Counseling psychologists are particularly well-positioned to help clients develop critical consciousness about the environmental factors contributing to their distress. For instance, clinicians working with STEM women faculty might use a consciousness-raising approach to identify the impact of sexism in the workplace and develop strategies to address gender-based discrimination (Diemer et al., 2016).
Given the systems-level barriers described by participants, it is also critical that calls for change be made at institutional and societal levels. Counseling psychologists in academia broadly, and in administrative roles specifically, can advocate for changes that will help women in the STEM academy attain equitable and supportive working conditions. Participants in the current study identified a range of supports at the institutional level that would be beneficial, including a more manageable workload (e.g., course releases, reduced service expectations, logistical support), more flexible evaluations (e.g., reevaluating how teaching evaluations are used, reducing research expectations in tenure decisions), continued access to remote work, and adjustments to funding that reflect pandemic-related changes. These suggestions highlight the importance of transparency and fairness in promotion requirements and tenure decision-making, which was recommended long before COVID-19 (e.g., NASEM, 2020).
Previous research supports recommendations to adjust tenure expectations, with specific calls to weight service work more strongly given longstanding gender and racial discrepancies in the distribution of academic service (Domingo et al., 2022). Many participants in the current study also emphasized that existing tenure expectations are no longer tenable. At a minimum, ensuring tenure and promotion requirements are unbiased, clearly communicated, and fairly applied are crucial to addressing these concerns (NASEM, 2020). In light of present data, we also recommend that institutions take immediate action to account for these factors in making tenure decisions.
Counseling psychologists can also engage in advocacy work that urges institutions to evaluate their family-supportive policies and departmental cultures. NASEM (2020) recommends that caregiving and childbearing policies be “well-articulated, broadly communicated, and consistent… [and] accompanied by culture change efforts aimed at normalizing the use of such benefits and resources” (p. 115)—ideals that were not a reality for many women in the current sample. Women faculty have historically been punished for gaps in their research productivity during family leave (Bartel et al., 2017; McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018). Moreover, STEM departments should also work to create inclusive and supportive interpersonal environments for women academics. Departmental culture has significant implications for women’s attainment of decent work (England et al., 2020) and persistence in the field (Maranto & Griffin, 2011). Counseling psychologists can offer trainings to increase awareness of systemic inequalities that impact the interpersonal culture and workload for minoritized faculty, needs assessments on junior women academics’ experiences, or education about how temporal and emotional boundary-setting can improve faculty mentorship of graduate students (particularly for women and faculty/students of Color; Saffie-Robertson, 2020).
From a training perspective, counseling psychologists should prepare students to engage in both clinical and advocacy work with marginalized workers. Counseling psychology programs might use PWT as an instructional tool, drawing on the field’s vocational roots and social justice values to discuss how marginalized populations can attain decent work (Altmaier & Ali, 2012; Duffy et al., 2016). Further, the results of the current study highlight the importance of broader societal shifts around gender equality and workplace expectations. The burden of change should not fall on junior women faculty; rather, university and department leaders should implement policies that promote inclusion to transform the chilly culture. Training programs in counseling psychology should emphasize the importance of this advocacy work, encouraging students to value their advocate role alongside their scientist–practitioner identity (Miles & Fassinger, 2021). Faculty might also invite students to take part in department-level or institution-wide trainings on implicit bias, sexism in academia, or workload distribution (Liu et al., 2019).
Finally, the core values of counseling psychology also inform directions for future research. For example, counseling psychologists may more intentionally examine systemic factors contributing to marginalization (e.g., racism, sexism, classism) as discussed within PWT, including how COVID-19 impacted experiences of oppression within academic settings. Future studies might also evaluate the effectiveness of specific policies designed to promote women’s career development and tenure journey. Drawing on a strengths-based perspective, counseling psychologists could examine the experiences of career and personal resilience among women who received tenure during the pandemic. Further, while the current study included tenure-track women who remained in academia, several women from the study (Dunn et al., 2022) reported intentions of leaving already. Future research may include women who left academia during this time to elucidate mechanisms for further plugging the leaky pipeline.
Limitations
These findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations. First, conclusions about causality may not be drawn due to the qualitative methodology. Statements about the evolution of individual women’s experiences also cannot be made, as the data from two time points were compared on a group basis. Additionally, given that 60% of participants filled out the survey at both time points and we selected our a priori cutoff of 10%, the between group differences from Time 1 to Time 2 may have been overemphasized. Moreover, although the proportion of women of Color in the study exceeds the national average in STEM, the sample included a limited number of non-White participants. It is therefore difficult to draw inferences about the intersection of racial oppression and pandemic-related disadvantages. Additionally, due to the use of snowball sampling, it was not possible to determine the density of participants employed within specific institutions or compare institutional differences. Finally, there may be response bias present in the qualitative results. The questionnaires may have provided a welcome space for the most frustrated women to express their concerns, skewing results towards adverse experiences. It’s also possible that the women most negatively affected by the pandemic did not have the bandwidth to complete the survey, thereby concealing the full nature of COVID-19’s harm.
Conclusion
In sum, the current study extends our understanding of the pandemic’s impact on the vocational development of STEM women faculty. Results reveal alarming trends of increasing barriers, diminishing supports, and amplified stress, which exacerbate existing threats to women’s persistence in academia (Xu, 2008). The study also underscores the need for improved institutional supports and broader advocacy efforts that promote workplace equity and inclusion for STEM academic women.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Krish Lamba for his support in data coding.
Author Note
A previous version of this study was presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association.
