One reason for women’s absence in science, technology, engineering, math, and medical science (STEMM) disciplines is the perceived incompatibility of having a family and a science career. However, little is known about the climate surrounding support for balancing work and family responsibilities for STEMM and non-STEMM scholars at the postdoctoral training level. In Study 1, we examined the relationship between STEMM and non-STEMM postdocs’ perceived family-friendly climate, job satisfaction, and workplace belonging (N = 553). In Study 2, we examined the relationship between a broad range of tenure-track faculty members’ family-friendly climate, job satisfaction, and workplace belonging (N = 385). Hierarchical multiple regression results indicated that perceived institutional support for family commitments was linked with job satisfaction and sense of belonging for men and women in faculty and postdoctoral training positions in both STEMM and non-STEMM fields. In addition, for STEMM postdocs (but not for non-STEMM postdocs or faculty), gender moderated the effects of perceived support for family on job satisfaction and sense of belonging, such that women with low institutional support for family commitments were significantly less satisfied with their jobs and felt less belonging to their workplace environment than comparable men. We discuss implications of academic departmental climate and initiatives for family-friendly policies for retention of women in academia.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AllenT. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
3.
AllenT. D.HerstD. E. L.BruckC. S.SuttonM. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278–308.
4.
AndersonD. M.MorganB. L.WilsonJ. B. (2002). Perceptions of family-friendly policies: University versus corporate employees. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23, 73–92.
5.
ArmstrongD. J.RiemenschneiderC. K.AllenM. W.ReidM. F. (2007). Advancement, voluntary turnover and women in IT: A cognitive study of work–family conflict. Information and Management, 44, 142–153.
6.
ChenX.WekoT. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
7.
CinamonR. G.RichY. (2002). Gender differences in the importance of work and family roles: Implications for work–family conflict. Sex Roles, 47, 531–541.
8.
ConleyV. M. (2005). Career paths for women faculty: Evidence from NSOPF: 99. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005, 25–39.
9.
DaleyD. M. (1998). An overview of benefits for the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 5–22.
10.
DawsonJ. F.RichterA. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.
11.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057.
12.
DurstS. L. (1999). Assessing the effect of family friendly programs on public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 19–33.
13.
DuttonJ. E.RobertsL. M.BednarJ. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. The Academy of Management Review, 35, 265–293.
14.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
16.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.DiekmanA. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In ShahJ. Y.GardnerW. L. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
EcklundE. H.LincolnA. E. (2011). Scientists want more children. PloS one, 6, e22590.
FinkelS. K.OlswangS. G. (1996). Child rearing as a career impediment to women assistant professors. Review of Higher Education, 19, 123–139.
20.
GeisF. L. (1993). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A social psychological view of gender. In BeallA. E.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 9–54). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
GouldenM.FraschK.MasonM. A. (2008). UC postdoctoral scholar career and life survey. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley.
22.
GouldenM.FraschK.MasonM. A. (2009). Staying competitive: Patching America’s leaky pipeline in the sciences. Berkeley Center on Health, Economic, and Family Security Report. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
23.
GrantL.KennellyI.WardK. B. (2000). Revisiting the gender, marriage, and parenthood puzzle in scientific careers. Women's Studies Quarterly, 28, 62–85.
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
HofferT. B.GrigorianK.HedbergE. (2008, March). Postdoc participation of science, engineering, and health doctorate recipients, InfoBrief, National Science Foundation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08307/
26.
JohnsonP. O.NeymanJ. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
27.
KickulJ.Liao-TrothM. A. (2003). The meaning behind the message: Climate perceptions and the psychological contract. American Journal of Business, 18, 23–32.
28.
KossekE. E.OzekiC. (1999). Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap: A literature review. Community, Work & Family, 2, 7–32.
29.
LapierreL. M.AllenT. D. (2006). Work-supportive family, family-supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem-focused coping: Implications for work-family conflict and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 169–181.
30.
MarshallN.BarnettR. (1994). Family-friendly workplaces, work-family interface, and worker health. In KeitaC. P.HurvellJ. J. (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 253–264). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
31.
MartinezE. D.BotosJ.DohoneyK. M.GeimanT. M.KollaS. S.OliveraA.…Cohen-FixO. (2007). Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Reports, 8, 977–981.
32.
MasonM. A.GouldenM. (2002). Do babies matter? The effect of family formation on the lifelong careers of academic men and women. Academe, 88, 21–27.
MasonM. A.GouldenM. (2006). UC doctoral student career and life survey. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley. Retrieved fromhttp://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu
35.
MavriplisC.HellerR.BeilC.DamK.YassinskayaN.ShawM.SorensenC. (2010). Mind the gap: Women in STEM career breaks. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5, 140–151.
PhelanJ. E.Moss-RacusinC. A.RudmanL. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406–413.
38.
RaabeP. H. (1997). Work-family policies for faculty: How “career- and family-friendly” is academe? In FerberM. A.LoebJ. W. (Eds.), Academic couples: Problems and promises (pp. 208–225). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
39.
RosserV. J. (2004). Faculty members' intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45, 285–309.
40.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
41.
SeibertS. E.SilverS. R.RandolphW. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. The Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.
42.
SettlesI. H.CortinaL. M.MalleyJ.StewartA. J. (2006). The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 47–58.
43.
SettlesI. H.CortinaL. M.StewartA. J.MalleyJ. (2007). Voice matters: Buffering the impact of a negative climate for women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 270–281.
44.
SteeleC. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi and other clues to how stereotypes affect us. New York, NY: WW Norton.
45.
SuX. (2011). Postdoctoral training, departmental prestige and scientists’ research productivity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 275–291.
46.
SullivanS. E.MainieroL. A. (2007). Kaleidoscope careers: Benchmarking ideas for fostering family-friendly workplaces. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 45–62.
47.
ThompsonC. A.ProttasD. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 100–118.
48.
VoydanoffP. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398–412.
49.
WanousJ. P.ReichersA. E.HudyM. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
50.
WilliamsJ. C. (2005). The glass ceiling and the maternal wall in academia. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005, 91–105.
51.
WilliamsJ. C.SegalN. (2003). Beyond the maternal wall: Relief for family caregivers who are discriminated against on the job. Harvard Women's Law Journal, 26, 77–162.
52.
WolfingerN. H.MasonM. A.GouldenM. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 388–405.
53.
YoderJ. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism. Gender & Society, 5, 178–192.
