Methodology is often a point of contention in gender-based salary studies. Although this debate seems at first to be merely about technical issues, it also has an important conceptual dimension. We argue that there are two competing implicit conceptions of discrimination, one institutional and the other individual, that underlie many such debates. We first contrast the preferred methodologies advanced by each side, the policy capturing approach and the flagging approach, and explore the theoretical meaning of their statistical models. We then describe a practical application of both methodological approaches in one specific salary inequity study. In conclusion, we reflect on the implications of such practical statistical choices, discuss how such models can be combined, and make suggestions for sociologists who act as statistical experts or work with them in gender-based salary inequity studies on their own campuses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acker, Joan.
1989. Doing comparable worth: Gender, class and pay equity.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
2.
American Association of Dental Schools.Faculty Salary Survey.Washington, DC: American Association of Dental Schools. 1993-1994.
3.
Becker, Gary.1985. Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor.Journal of Labor Economics3:S33-58.
4.
Bellas, Marcia L.1994. Comparable worth in academia: The effects on faculty salaries of the sex composition and labor-market conditions of academic disciplines.American Sociological Review59:807-21.
5.
Bellas, Marcia L.1997. Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries: Does gender bias play a role?Journal of Higher Education68 (3): 299-321.
6.
Benokraitis, Nijole V.
, and Joe R. Feagin. 1995. Modern sexism.2d ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7.
Bielby, William
, and James Baron.1986. Men and women at work-sex segregation and statistical discrimination.American Journal of Sociology91:759-99.
8.
Blalock, Hubert M.
1991. Understanding social inequality: Modeling allocation processes.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Campbell, Donald T.
, and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
Cipes, M.
1983. Analysis of pay equity for men and women faculty at the University of Connecticut Health Center. Prepared for the Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Women at the Health Center.
11.
Clayton, Susan
, and Faye Crosby. 1992. Gender, justice, and affirmative action.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
12.
Cockburn, Cynthia.
1991. In the way of women: Men's resistance to sex equality in organizations.Ithaca, NY: ILR.
13.
Connell, R. W.
1987. Gender and power.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Dadalt, R. A. 1986. Pay equity analysis. Masters thesis, University of Connecticut Health Center Faculty.
15.
Deaux, Kay
, and Brenda Major.1987. Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender related behavior.Psychological Review94:369-89.
16.
England, Paula.
1992. Comparable worth: Theories and evidence.New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
17.
Filer, R.1983. Sexual differences in earnings: The role of individual personalities and tastes.Journal of Human Resources18 (1): 82-99.
18.
Geetter, Joan. 1988. Report of the University/AAUP salary inequity committee to the board of trustees. University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
19.
Gray, Mary W.
1990. Achieving pay equity on campus.Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
20.
Gray, Mary W.1993. Can statistics tell us what we do not want to hear? The case of complex salary structures.Statistical Science8 (2): 144-79.
21.
Gray, Mary W.
, and Elizabeth L. Scott.1980. A “statistical” remedy for statistically identified discrimination.Academe66: 174-81.
22.
Gronowicz, Gloria, Nancy D. Adams, Andrea J. Apter, Elise Barbarese, Joan Bourbeau, Diana G. Myles, Christine Niekrash, Martha J. Radford, Susan Rersine, Jonelle C. Rowe, Paula Tempro, Myra M. Ferree, and Julia McQuillan. 1993. Report of the Working Group on the Status of Women Faculty at the University of Connecticut Health Center. Farmington, CT.
23.
Haignere, Lois
, Y. Lin, B. Eisenberg, and J. McCarthy. 1996. Pay checks: A guide to achieving salary equity in higher education.New York: United University Professions.
24.
Hauser, Robert M., and Karl Oppenheim Mason. 1993. Faculty pay equity study: Gender and ethnicity pay equity analysis. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs.
25.
Holmes-Rovner, M.
, E. Alexander, B. O'Kelly, W. Rome, S. Ming Wu, K. Lovell, and M. Alfano.1994. Compensation equity between men and women in academic medicine: Methods and implications.Academic Medicine69 (2): 131-7.
26.
Ikeda, K.
1995. Evaluation research issues in women faculty pay equity adjustments: Evaluation of across-the-board over case-by-case equity adjustments. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, August, Washington, DC.
27.
Jacob, Mary C.
, Nancy D. Adams, Robert L. Jungas, and Clarence Trummel. 1996. Joint medical and dental councils committee on women's pay equity: Final report. University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington.
28.
Jacobs, J. A.
, and Ronnie J. Steinberg.1990. Compensating differentials and the male-female wage gap: Evidence from the New York State comparable worth study.Social Forces69:439-68.
29.
Jones, F. L.
, and Jonathan Kelley.1984. Decomposing differences between groups.Sociological Methods & Research12 (3): 323-43.
30.
Kanter, Rosabeth M.
1977. Men and women of the corporation.New York: Basic Books.
31.
Major, Brenda.
1987. Gender, justice, and the psychology of entitlement. In Sex and gender, edited by P. Shaver and C. Hendrich.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
Major, Brenda.1989. Gender differences in comparisons and entitlements: Implications for comparable worth.Journal of Social Issues45:99-115.
33.
Norusis, M. J.
1988. SPSS-X introductory statistics guide.Chicago: SPSS.
34.
Polachek, Solomon W.
1985. Women in the economy: Perspectives on gender inequality. In Comparable worth: Issues for the 80's: A consultation of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
35.
Reskin, Barbara F.
, and Patricia A. Roos. 1990. Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women's inroads into male occupations.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
36.
Scott, Elizabeth L.
1977. Higher education salary evaluation kit.Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
37.
Smith, William.
1993-1994. Report on medical school faculty salaries.Washington, DC: American Association of Medical Colleges.
38.
Steinberg, Ronnie J.
1995. Advocacy research for feminist policy objectives: Experiences with comparable worth. In Feminism and social change: Bridging theory and practice, edited by H. Gottfried.Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
39.
Steinberg, Ronnie J.
, and Lois Haignere. 1987. Equitable compensation: Methodological criteria for comparable worth. In Ingredients for women's employment policy, edited by C. Bose and G. Spitze.Albany: State University of New York Press.
