This article addresses a telling issue in academic science: the clarity of criteria for tenure and promotion reported by women and men faculty in scientific fields. Data from faculty surveyed in nine US research universities point to ways that formal and informal organizational indicators predict the clarity of evaluation reported by women and men. Unexpected patterns occur by gender. Among men, both formal and informal organizational indicators, as well as field, predict their reported clarity of evaluation. Among women, however, only informal organizational indicators, namely, frequency of speaking with faculty about research and departmental climate, are significant predictors. Further, overall, informal indicators are stronger predictors of clarity than are formal indicators, and some field differences occur. These findings have implications for national and regional science policies and for the practices and policies of universities.
AckerJoan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organization.” Gender & Society4 (2): 139–58.
2.
AgrestiA.1990. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley.
3.
AllisonPaul. 1999. “Comparing Logit and Probit Coefficients across Groups.” Sociological Methods and Research28 (2): 186–208.
4.
BailynLotte. 2003. “Academic Careers and Gender Equity: Lessons Learned from MIT.” Gender, Work, and Organizations10 (2): 137–53.
5.
BarkerKatherine. 2007. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise: The Evolution of a National Research Evaluation System.” Research Evaluation16 (1): 3–12.
6.
BaronJamesHannanMichael T.HsuGretaKocakOzgecan. 2007. “In the Company of Women: Gender Inequality and the Logic of Bureaucracy in Start-up Firms.” Work and Occupations34 (1): 35–66.
7.
BilimoriaDianaLiangXiangfen. 2012. Gender Equity in Science and Engineering: Advancing Change in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
8.
BirnbaumRobert. 1988. How Colleges Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9.
BlalockHubert. 1991. Understanding Social Inequality: Modeling Allocation Processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
BlauPeter. 1994. The Organization of Academic Work. 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
11.
BranskampLarry A.MuffoJohn A.LangstonIra. 1978. “Determining Salary Equity: Politics, Procedures, and Problems.” The Journal of Higher Education49 (3): 231–46.
12.
BraskampLarry A.OryJohn C.. 1994. Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
BrittonDana. 2010. “Engendering the University through Policy and Practice: Barriers to Promotion to Full Professor for Women in the Science, Engineering, and Math Disciplines.” In Gender Change in Academia: Remapping the Fields of Work, Knowledge, and Politics from a Gendered Perspective, edited by RiegrafB.AulenbacherB.Kirsch-AuwarterE.MullerU., 111–31. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlap.
14.
BuntonSarah A.CorriceApril M.. 2011. “Perceptions of the Promotion Process: An Analysis of U.S. Medical School Faculty.” Analysis in Brief (American Association of Medical Colleges)11 (5): 4–5.
15.
BurkhardtJohn. 2002. Kellogg Forum on Higher Education Transformation. Ann Arbor: Center for the Study of Postsecondary Education, The University of Michigan.
16.
CallisterRonda R.2006. “Impact of Gender and Department Climate on Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit for Faculty in Science and Engineering Fields.” Journal of Technology Transfer31 (3): 367–75.
17.
COACHE (Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education). 2006. COACHE Highlights Report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
18.
CookClarissaWatersMalcolm. 1998. “The Impact of Organizational Form on Gendered Labor Markets in Engineering and Law.” The Sociological Review46 (2): 314–39.
19.
CozzensSusanWoodhouseEdward. 1995. “Science, Government, and Politics of Knowledge.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (2nd ed.), edited by JasanoffS.PetersenJ.PinchT., 92–102. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
CrockerLindaAlginaJames. 2006. Classical and Modern Test Theory. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
21.
DemerittDavid. 2000. “The New Social Contract for Science: Accountability, Relevance, and Value in US and UK Science and Research Policy.” Antipode32 (3): 308–29.
22.
DokkoGinaWilkSteffanieRothbardNancy. 2009. “Unpacking Prior Experience: How Career History Affects Job Performance.” Organization Science20 (1): 51–68.
23.
ElviraMarta M.GrahamMary E.. 2002. “Not Just a Formality: Pay-System Formalization and Sex-related Earnings Effects.” Organization Science13 (6): 601–17.
24.
EvettsJulia. 1996. Gender and Career in Science and Engineering. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
25.
FoxMary Frank. 2001. “Women, Science, and Academia: Graduate Education and Careers.” Gender & Society15 (5): 654–66.
26.
FoxMary Frank. 2008. “Institutional Transformation and the Advancement of Women Faculty: The Case of Academic Science and Engineering.” In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (vol. 23), edited by SmartJ. C., 73–108. New York: Springer.
27.
FoxMary FrankColatrellaCarol. 2006. “Participation, Performance, and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering: What is at Issue and Why.” Journal of Technology Transfer31 (3): 377–86.
28.
GibbonsMichael. 1999. “Science’s New Social Contract with Society.” Nature402 (2): C81–84.
29.
GustonDavid H.2000. Between Policies and Science: Assessing the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
HackettEdward. 2008. “Politics and Publics.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed.), edited by HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ., 609–30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31.
HermanowiczJoseph. 1998. The Stars Are Not Enough: Scientists—Their Passions and Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
HermanowiczJoseph. 2009. Lives in Science: How Institutions Affect Academic Careers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
HuberMary Taylor. 2002. “Faculty Evaluation and the Development of Academic Careers.” New Directions for Institutional Research2002 (114):73–83.
34.
JamiesonSusan. 2004. “Likert Scales: How to (ab)Use Them.” Medical Education38 (12): 1212–18.
35.
JohnsonBarbara J.HarveyWilliam. 2002. “The Socialization of Black College Faculty: Implications for Policy and Practice.” The Review of Higher Education25 (3): 297–314.
36.
JordanC. GreerBilimoriaDiana. 2007. “Creating a Productive and Inclusive Academic Work Environment.” In Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women, edited by StewartA.MalleyJ.LaVaque-MantyD., 225–242. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
37.
KopelmanR.BriefA.GuzzoR.. 1990. “The Role of Climate and Culture in Productivity.” In Organizational Climate and Culture, edited by SchneiderB., 238–318. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38.
LincolnAnnePincusStephanieKosterJanetLeboyPhoebe. 2012. “The Matilda Effect in Science Awards and Prizes in the United States, 1990s and 2000s.” Social Studies of Science42 (2): 307–20.
39.
LongJ. Scott. 2001. From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
40.
LongJ. Scott. 2009. “Group Comparisons in Logit and Probit Using Predicted Probabilities.” Working paper 2009-06-25, Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
41.
LongJ. ScottFoxMary Frank. 1995. “Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism.” Annual Review of Sociology21:45–71.
42.
McGuireGail. 2002. “Gender, Race, and the Shadow Structure: A Study of Informal Networks and Inequality in a Work Organization.” Gender & Society16 (3): 303–22.
43.
McIlweeJudithRobinsonGregg. 1992. Women in Engineering. Albany: State University of New York Press.
MisraJoyaLundquistJennifer HicksHolmesElissaAgiomavritisStephanie. 2011. “The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work.” Academe97 (1): 22–26.
46.
MontgomeryScott L.1994. Minds for the Making. New York: Guilford.
47.
MorleyLouise. 2001. “Subjected to Review: Engendering Quality and Power in Higher Education.” Journal of Educational Policy16 (5): 465–78.
48.
NathanDaniel. 1998. “Clinical Research: Perceptions, Realities, and Proposed Solutions.” Journal of the American Medical Association280 (16): 1427–31.
49.
NunamakerJayBriggsRobert O.MittlemanDavid D.VogelDouglas R.BalthazardPierre. 1996. “Lessons Learned from a Dozen Years of Group Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings.” Journal of Management Information Systems13 (3): 163–207.
50.
PelzDonaldAndrewsFrank. 1976. Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
51.
PetersonMarvinSpencerMelinda. 1990. “Understanding Academic Culture and Climate.” In Assessing Academic Culture and Climates, edited by TierneyW., 3–18. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52.
ReichersAaronSchneiderBenjamin. 1990. “Climate and Culture: An Evolution of the Constructs.” In Organizational Climate and Culture, edited by SchneiderB., 5–39. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
53.
ReskinBarbara. 1978. “Sex Differentiation and the Social Organization of Science.” Sociological Inquiry48 (3-4): 491–504.
54.
ReskinBarbara. 2000. “Getting it Right: Sex and Race Inequality in Work Organizations.” Annual Review of Sociology26:707–9.
55.
ReskinBarbara. 2003. “Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality.” American Sociological Review68 (1): 1–21.
56.
RiceR. EugeneSorcenelliMary DeaneAustinAnn. 2000. Heading New Voices: Academic Careers for a New Generation. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
57.
RothWendySonnertGerhard. 2011. “The Costs and Benefits of ‘Red Tape’: Anti-bureaucratic Structure and Gender Inequity in a Science Research Organization.” Social Studies of Science41 (3): 385–409.
58.
SeldinPeter. 1984. Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
59.
ShapinSteven. 2008. “Science and the Modern World.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed.), edited by HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ., 433–48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60.
SonnertGerhardHoltonGerald. 1995. Gender Differences in Science Careers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
61.
StephanPaula. 2012. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
TierneyWilliam G.BensimonEstela Mara. 1996. Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe. Albany: State University of New York Press.
63.
Van LeeuwenThed N.VisserMartin S.MoedHank F.NederhofTon J.RannAnthony van. 2003. “The Holy Grail of Science Policy: Exploring and Finding Bibliometric Tools in Search of Scientific Excellence.” Scientometrics57 (2): 257–80.
64.
WajcmanJudy. 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
65.
WeberMax. 1946. “Bureaucracy.” In Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated by GerthH. H.MillsC. W., 196–244. New York: Oxford University Press.
66.
WhitmanNealWeissElaine. 1982. Faculty Evaluation: The Use of Explicit Criteria for Promotion, Retention, and Tenure. AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
67.
WilsonFionaBeatonDonald. 1993. “The Theory and Practice of Appraisal.” Higher Education Quarterly47 (2): 163–89.
68.
WinshipChristopherRadbillLarry. 1994. “Sampling Weights and Regression Analysis.” Sociological Methods and Research23 (2): 230–57.
69.
XieYuShaumanKimberlee. 2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
70.
ZuckermanHarriet. 1988. “The Sociology of Science.” In Handbook of Sociology, edited by SmelserN. J., 511–74. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
