Why are young women less likely than young men to persist in academic science and engineering? Drawing on 57 in-depth interviews with PhD students and postdoctoral scholars in the United States, we describe how, in academic science and engineering, motherhood is constructed in opposition to professional legitimacy, and as a subject of fear, repudiation, and public controversy. We call this the “specter of motherhood.” This specter disadvantages young women and amplifies anticipatory concerns about combining an academic career with motherhood. By specifying (1) the content of cultural discourses about motherhood in academic workplaces and (2) the processes by which these ideas circulate, produce disadvantage, and inform young, childless scientists and engineers’ career plans, our findings offer novel insight into mechanisms contributing to inequality in academic careers.
AckerJoan. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs and bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society4 (2): 139–58.
2.
BailynLotte. 2003. Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT. Gender, Work and Organization10 (2): 137–53.
3.
BelliRobert F.1998. The structure of autobiographical memory and the event history calendar: Potential improvements in the quality of retrospective reports in surveys. Memory6 (4): 383–406.
4.
BenardStephenCorrellShelley J.2010. Normative discrimination and the motherhood penalty. Gender & Society24 (5): 616–46.
5.
Blair-LoyMary. 2003. Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrewinChris R.AndrewsBerniceGotlibIan H.1993. Psychopathology and early experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin113 (1): 82–98.
7.
BrittonDana M.2017. Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gender & Society31 (1): 5–27.
8.
BurkeAmy. 2019. Science and Engineering Labor Force. Science and Engineering Indicators. National Science Foundation and National Science Board. Alexandria, VA. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20198
9.
ButlerJudith. 2011. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex.”New York: Routledge.
10.
CechErin A.2016. Mechanism or myth? Family plans and the reproduction of occupational gender segregation. Gender & Society30 (2): 265–88.
11.
CechErin A.Blair-LoyMary. 2014. Consequences of flexibility stigma among academic scientists and engineers. Work and Occupations41 (1): 86–110.
12.
CechErin A.Blair-LoyMary. 2019. The changing career trajectories of new parents in STEM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116 (10): 4182–87.
13.
CechErinRubineauBrianSilbeySusanSerondCaroll. 2011. Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review76 (5): 641–66.
14.
CeciStephen J.WilliamsWendy M.2010. Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science19 (5): 275–79.
15.
CharlesMaria. 2011. What gender is science?Contexts10 (2): 22–28.
16.
CorrellShelley J.2004. Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review69 (1): 93–113.
17.
CorrellShelley J.BenardStephen W.PaikIn. 2007. Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology112 (5): 1297–338.
18.
CuddyAmy J. C.FiskeSusan T.GlickPeter. 2004. When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues60 (4): 701–18.
19.
DeterdingNicole M.WatersMarcy C.2018. Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research. Published online October 1. doi:10.1177/0049124118799377.
20.
De WeldeKrisLaursenSandra L.2011. The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers for women Ph.D. students in STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology3 (3): 572–95.
21.
DragoRobertColbeckCarol L.StaufferKai DawnPirrettiAmyBurkumKurtFazioliJenniferLazzaroGabrielaHabasevichTara. 2006. The avoidance of bias against caregiving: The case of academic faculty. American Behavioral Scientist49 (9): 1222–47.
22.
EcklundElaine HowardLincolnAnne E.2016. Failing families, failing science: Work-family conflict in academic science. New York: New York University Press.
23.
EnglandPaula. 2010. The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society24 (2): 149–66.
24.
EtzkowitzHenryKemelgorCarolUzziBrian. 2000. Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
FoschiMartha. 1996. Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly59 (3): 237–54.
26.
FoxMary Frank. 2001. Women, science, and academia: Graduate education and careers. Gender & Society15 (5): 654–66.
27.
GlaserBarney G.1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
28.
GlassJennifer L.SasslerSharonLevitteYaelMichelmoreKatherine M.2013. What’s so special about STEM? A comparison of women’s retention in STEM and professional occupations. Social Forces92 (2): 723–36.
29.
GouldenMarcFraschKarieMasonMary Ann. 2009. Staying competitive: Patching America’s leaky pipeline in the sciences. Berkeley: University of California Center on Health, Economic, & Family Security and the Center for American Progress.
30.
HaysSharon. 1996. The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
HewlittSylvia AnnLuceCarolyn BuckServonLisa J.SherbinLauraShillerPeggySosnovichEytanSumbergKaren. 2008. The Athena factor: Reversing the brain drain in science, engineering, and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Research Report.
32.
MasonMary AnnWolfingerNicholas H.GouldenMarc. 2013. Do babies matter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
33.
MilkmanKatherine L.AkinolaModupeChughDolly. 2012. Temporal distance and discrimination: An audit study in academia. Psychological Science23 (7): 710–17.
34.
MillerAmanda J.SasslerSharonKusi-AppouchDela. 2011. The specter of divorce: Views from working- and middle-class cohabitors. Family Relations60 (5): 602–16.
35.
MonossonEmily, ed. 2008. Motherhood, the elephant in the laboratory: Women scientists speak out. Ithaca, NY: ILR press.
36.
MorganStephen L.GelbgiserDafnaWeedenKim A.2013. Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science Research42 (4): 989–1005.
37.
Moss-RacusinCorrine A.DovidioJohn F.BrescollVictoria L.GrahamMark J.HandelsmanJo. 2012. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109 (41): 16474–79.
38.
MurphyMary C.SteeleClaude M.GrossJames J.2007. Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science18 (10): 879–85.
39.
National Academies Press. 2010. Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
40.
NosekBrian A.BanajiMahzarin R.GreenwaldAnthony G.2002. Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83 (1): 44–59.
41.
PascoeC. J.2007. Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
PatlerCaitlinPirtleWhitney L.2018. From undocumented to lawfully present: Do changes to legal status impact psychological wellbeing among Latino immigrant young adults?Social Science & Medicine199:39–48.
43.
RhotonLaura A.2011. Distancing as a gendered barrier: Understanding women scientists’ gender practices. Gender & Society25 (6): 696–716.
44.
RidgewayCecilia L.2011. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
45.
RidgewayCecilia L.CorrellShelley J.2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society18 (4): 510–31.
46.
RoosPatricia A.GattaMary L.2009. Gender (in)equity in the academy: Subtle mechanisms and the production of inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility27 (3): 177–200.
47.
RosserSue V.2004. The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the struggle to succeed. New York: Routledge.
48.
SandlerBernice R.HallRoberta M.1986. The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty, administrators, and graduate students. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
49.
SettlesIsis H.CortinaLilla M.MalleyJanetStewartAbigail J.2006. The climate for women in academic science: The good, the bad, and the changeable. Psychology of Women Quarterly30 (1): 47–58.
50.
ShaumanKimberlee A.2017a. Gender differences in the early employment outcomes of STEM doctorates. Social Sciences6 (1): 24.
51.
ShaumanKimberlee A.2017b. Who applies for STEM faculty positions? Gender and racial differences in applications and qualifications. Paper presented to Research Committee 28 Conference, Summer Meeting, International Sociological Association. New York, NY, August 7.
52.
StonePamela. 2007. Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home. Berkeley: University of California Press.
53.
ThébaudSarahCharlesMaria. 2018. Segregation, stereotypes and STEM. Social Sciences7 (7): 111.
54.
TurcoCatherine J.2010. Cultural foundations of tokenism evidence from the leveraged buyout industry. American Sociological Review75 (6): 894–913.
55.
VarmaRoli. 2007. Women in computing: The role of geek culture. Science as Culture16 (4): 359–76.
56.
WeisgramErica S.DiekmanAmanda B.2017. Making STEM “family friendly”: The impact of perceiving science careers as family-compatible. Social Sciences6 (2): 61.
57.
WilliamsJoan C.AlonTaminaBornsteinStephanie. 2006. Beyond the chilly climate: Eliminating bias against women and fathers in academe. Thought and Action Fall:79–96.
58.
WilliamsWendy M.CeciStephen J.2012. When scientists choose motherhood. American Scientist100 (2): 138–45.
59.
XieYuShaumanKimberlee A.2003. Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
