Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Barriers for ...

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion 737

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion:
Barriers for Women*

Julie A. Winkler

Michigan State University

Women faculty continue to experience academe differently than male faculty. A review of recent literature indicates
that women’s representation on university faculties has advanced slowly; women are less likely to be tenured or pro-
moted compared to male faculty; and women faculty earn less than their male colleagues. A recurring theme is that
the intellectual and social isolation of women faculty affects their research productivity. Gender stereotypes held by
colleagues, departmental and college administrators, and students also contribute to the difficulties women face in the
reappointment, tenure, and promotion process. A personal perspective on the reappointment process is provided in
order to illustrate how isolation and naïvete regarding the social structure of academe can affect a woman’s career ad-
vancement. The benefits of greater representation of women on university faculties are reviewed, and departmental
and college administrators are reminded of the important role they play in ensuring future gender-balanced faculties.
Key Words: women faculty, reappointment, tenure, promotion, academia.

An Uncomfortable Topic achievements, and successes. For some men, dif-
ferential outcome of men versus women is sim-
Differential outcome and treatment of ply a non-issue. For each woman who has been
women faculty in the processes of reap- denied reappointment, tenure, or promotion,
pointment, tenure, and promotion can be an they can provide multiple examples of male fac-
uncomfortable topic for both female and male ulty who experienced the same fate. In a sense,
faculty. For some women, accusations of dis- they are correct. In absolute numbers, the num-
crimination by female faculty who have been ber of men who are not reappointed, tenured, or
denied reappointment, tenure, or promotion promoted is larger than the number of women.
are viewed as an “excuse” or “crutch” for a lack
of productivity or a weak teaching performance. Also contributing to the discomfort of this
They view cries of discrimination by others as issue is the vagueness of the reappointment,
detracting from their own hard work, sacrifices, tenure, and promotion processes for both male
and female faculty. Few faculty receive a formal

* I thank Heidi Nast and Karen Falconer Al-Hindi for initiating the original roundtable discussion from which this forum evolved and for their
continued encouragement in the preparation of this manuscript. Helpful comments from Richard Schwartz, Lizbeth Pyle, Stuart Aiken, and two
anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of the manuscript are gratefully acknowledged.

Professional Geographer, 52(4) 2000, pages 737–750 © Copyright 2000 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, December 1998; revised submission, January 2000; final acceptance, February 2000.

Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.

738 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000

appointment letter explicitly stating expecta- tion because of the difficulty I had with this
tions in terms of number of publications, types process early in my academic career. I begin
of journals in which to publish, grant dollar this essay by providing background informa-
amounts, and quality of teaching evaluations. tion on the status of women faculty in academe.
Furthermore, it is difficult to measure faculty Recent literature on hurdles and hindrances
achievements. The “quantity versus quality” is- that women encounter is then reviewed in order
sue haunts many discussions of research pro- to provide a context for interpreting my experi-
ductivity, and the best means to assess teaching ences and those of other women. I then briefly
effectiveness (e.g., student evaluations, peer describe my experience with the pretenure reap-
evaluations, exit interviews, or some combination pointment process and, based on that experience,
of these instruments) remains unclear. In addi- provide personal advice to women seeking fac-
tion, we cannot overlook that even when faculty ulty positions. I follow my personal perspective
are productive their achievements can be de- with a discussion of the importance of increasing
scribed in a negative light through the common the number of women faculty. Finally, I argue
academic lexicon, allowing room for personal that tenured women faculty in geography and
biases to influence reappointment, tenure, and other disciplines have an obligation to speak up
promotion decisions. As pointed out by Lieber- for a less “chilly climate” for women faculty.
son (1985) and cited in Fox (1991, 192):
Women Faculty—Frozen in Time?
. . . high achievement is not enough and perfor-
mance may be no guarantee of reward. Rather, as West (1995) proposed that women faculty are
an experienced scientist or scholar comes to rec- “frozen in time.” Her statement reflects a
ognize, there are stock procedures people use to growing dissatisfaction among many women
create and justify a negative assessment: finding with their progress within academe, in spite of
“inconsistencies” between parts of the work; dis- considerable earlier optimism (Farley 1990;
torting an argument; suggesting that the work Fox 1996a). One source of dissatisfaction is the
“lacks complexity”; asserting that it fails to in- at best modest increase in the number of
clude some significant piece of literature or as- women faculty. Women have often been coun-
pect of the subject (Lieberson 1985, 5). People seled to be patient—that equity in faculty repre-
who have the critical vocabulary and know the sentation “will take care of itself.” This argument
lingo can always find a way to justify a predeter- is based on the premise that improved employ-
mined negative judgment. ment status is directly proportional to improved
access to education (Fox 1996a). Women’s repre-
Despite the discomfort of this issue and its sentation on faculties, the thinking goes, will
accompanying vagueness, the differential out- increase as more women enter graduate pro-
come and treatment of women versus men in grams, complete PhD degrees, obtain faculty
reappointment, tenure, and promotion should positions, and mature and move through the
not be ignored in geography or other disci- professorial ranks (Fox 1996a). However, this
plines. When this process is viewed across de- assumption appears to be false. For example,
partments, universities, and disciplines, and in West (1995) found that the percentage of full-
terms of percentages rather than absolute num- time women faculty in American higher educa-
bers, a worrisome picture of differential outcome tion increased only 5% (from 26% to 31%)
and treatment emerges. Specifically, a larger from 1920 to 1995. She also noted that the gap
number of women compared to men drop out of between the percentage of women on our facul-
academe, at all stages of their career (Rausch et ties and the percentage of women among Amer-
al. 1989; Richard and Krieshok 1989); a larger ican recipients of PhDs almost doubled over a
percentage of women simply do not obtain ten- 13-year period (1981–1993). Farley (1990, 202)
ure (Cole 1981; Rausch et al. 1989; Sposito summarized the frustration of many women with
1992); and a larger percentage of women are not her statement that women “find it disheartening
promoted or are promoted at a more advanced that at this rate of change, it will be the year 3000
age (Cole 1981; Zuckerman 1991; Yentsch and before women are as well represented on the fac-
Sindermann 1992; NSF 1996; Valian 1998a). ulty as they currently are in the student body.”

I was asked to address, as part of a forum on Another related concern is that, proportion-
women in geography, the issue of women fac-
ulty and reappointment, tenure, and promo-

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion 739

ally, women faculty are less likely to be tenured males in 1982 and 88% in 1995. In both 1982
than are male faculty, and are less likely to and 1995, women assistant professors were
reach the highest academic ranks (Cole 1979, making 93% of the salaries of their male col-
1981; Rausch et al. 1989; Sposito 1992; NSF leagues at that rank. A wage gap exists even
1996, 1998). A number of statistics illustrate after controlling for productivity (Ornstein and
these two points. From 1975 to 1994, the per- Stewart 1996; Black and Holden 1998). Tout-
centage of fulltime women faculty with tenure koushian (1998) estimated that the unexplained
increased less than 2% (from 46% to 48%), (i.e., discriminatory) gap between the salaries
whereas the percentage of male faculty with of men and women faculty falls between 7%
tenure increased from 64% to 72% (West 1995). and 10%, and Ashraf (1996) reported that the
In 1991, the percentage of women full profes- discriminatory component of the earnings dif-
sors in the science (including social science) ferential fell between 1969 and 1984, but rose
and engineering fields was only 8.7% (Fox thereafter. Disturbingly, salary differentials by
1996b). As pointed out by Fox (1996b), this gender within academe may be considerably
percentage is out of line with the number of larger than those outside of academe. For at least
women who earned doctorates in the 1970s and one discipline (atmospheric science), the salaries
1980s and who should have had sufficient time of PhD scientists holding senior level positions
to move through the professorial ranks. It is in private industry, federal research laboratories,
important to note that sex differences in rank and government positions were equitable by
and tenure have been found even when men gender, whereas the average salaries of women
and women are matched by discipline, the full professors were substantially ($18,000) less
quality of the institution from which they than those of male faculty (Winkler et al. 1996).
earned their doctorate, and the number of
years since obtaining their doctorates (NSF Academe—A Meritocracy?
1996). In their longitudinal study of former re-
cipients of National Science Foundation and Some within academe view the university sys-
National Research Council postdoctoral fel- tem as a meritocracy. Achievement and ad-
lowships, Sonnert and Holton (1995a) found vancement are measured by a combination of
that whereas 42% of the men were full profes- quantitative indices (such as the number of
sors, only 23.2% of the women were full pro- published articles, frequency of citations, or av-
fessors, even though the average age of the erage teaching evaluations), anonymous evalu-
male and female faculty in their sample differed ation of scholarship, and professional peer re-
by only one year. They also found that women view. From this viewpoint, the higher dropout
faculty experienced a greater rank disadvantage rate, lower rates of reappointment, tenure, and
at the more prestigious universities. promotion, and lower salaries for women faculty
are indicative of poorer teaching performance,
A further source of dissatisfaction and frus- lower levels of research productivity, and lesser
tration is that women faculty, on average, earn impact of their work. Is there evidence to sup-
less than their male colleagues. Salary discrep- port this viewpoint? Or are there inequities in
ancies have been found for every category of how supposedly meritocractic instruments and
US academic institution and for institutions procedures of evaluation are applied to female
with and without collective bargaining agree- versus male faculty? Or do women faculty ex-
ments (Sosin et al. 1998). Discrepancies exist at perience hurdles and hindrances not typically
all professorial ranks, although the largest dif- encountered by male faculty that affect their
ferences occur at the rank of full professor success within the university system?
(West 1995; Winkler et al. 1996; Sosin et al.
1998). Even within the distinguished professor Evaluation of Teaching Performance
rank, where academic honors are based on re-
search achievement, large salary discrepancies Student teaching evaluations remain the most
are found between men and women (Olsen et common method of evaluating faculty perfor-
al. 1995). Importantly, the gender-based wage mance in the classroom. Of concern is whether
gap does not appear to be diminishing. West this form of evaluation is equitable for male and
(1995) documented the fact that female full female faculty. Although the results of previous
professors were earning 89% of the salaries of studies of gender bias in faculty evaluations are

740 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000

complex and often contradictory (see Feldman women publish less frequently than men and
1992, 1993 for a review of laboratory and class- obtain fewer extramural grants (Cole and Zuck-
room assessments of gender differences), prior erman 1987; Zuckerman 1991; Long 1992;
research generally suggests that students tend NSF 1996; Schneider 1998). It is tempting to
to rate same gender teachers higher than oppo- attribute this gender difference in productivity
site gender teachers (Feldman 1993; Basow to the time constraints women face as they bal-
1995). Thus, women who teach in traditionally ance marriage, family, and career. However,
male fields or whose classes are composed of a this explanation is overly simplistic, if not erro-
disproportionately large number of male stu- neous. Previous research has shown either that
dents are likely to receive weaker teaching eval- there is little or no relationship between publi-
uations. Another finding is that societal stereo- cation rate and marital and parental status of
types of both gender and professorial behaviors female faculty (Cole and Zuckerman 1987;
affect the evaluations faculty receive (Sandler et Sonnert and Holton 1995a, 1996), or that,
al. 1996). For example, the evaluations of fe- counterintuitively, single women publish less
male faculty, but not those of male faculty, were than married women faculty (Davis and Astin
found to be significantly related to smiling and 1990). Also, male faculty, women faculty with
social interactions (Kierstead et al. 1988). children, and women faculty without children
Women faculty are often placed in a “double spend a comparable number of hours on their
bind” as they try to balance the behaviors and jobs (Winkler et al. 1996). It is also difficult to
characteristics students expect of professors explain the difference in publication rate by
with those they expect from women (Sandler differences in how faculty allocate their time
1991). Although students expect more caring between different tasks or in their career moti-
and warm behavior from women, they may in- vation. Olsen et al. (1995) surveyed faculty at a
terpret such behavior as being “too feminine” Research I university and found no evidence to
for that of a professor; but if a woman faculty indicate that female faculty apportion signifi-
member acts in a strong and assertive manner cantly more time or demonstrate greater inter-
she may be viewed as “too masculine” (Sandler est than male faculty in teaching and service.
1991; Sandler et al. 1996). Women whose be- They also found that women were as likely as
havior is contrary to gender expectations (i.e., men to subscribe to the professional values and
assertive, authoritative) are at particular risk of goals of a research institution and derive intrin-
receiving lower teaching evaluations. sic satisfaction from their academic career. Sim-
ilarly, in their study of medical school faculty
Even when women behave according to ex- Barnett et al. (1998) found that the lower publi-
pected stereotypes, they may not be rewarded cation rate of women could not be accounted for
for this behavior. Bennett (1982) found that by gender differences in career motivation.
both men and women students fail to rate
women faculty as being more accessible than When women faculty are asked to define the
male faculty in formal evaluations, even when constraints imposed on their productivity, over
they receive more attention and time from and over again they describe feelings of exclu-
women faculty. Students also tend to rate female sion, disconnectedness, marginalization, intel-
professors as less knowledgeable and demand a lectual and social isolation, and limited access
higher standard of preparation from them (Bel- to resources (O’Leary and Mitchell 1990; Etz-
las 1999; Heckert et al. 1999). In addition, a kowitz et al. 1994; Olsen et al. 1995; Sonnert
small number of students may exhibit overt hos- 1995a; Sonnert and Holton 1995b, 1996; Park
tility to women faculty, and the authority of 1996; Bornstein and Farnsworth 1998; Lawler
women faculty may be challenged more often 1999). Concomitant with this, women report
and more aggressively (Sandler et al. 1996; Nast that they are not integrated into their academic
and Pulido 2000). These behaviors of a few stu- departments and disciplines (O’Leary and
dents can influence other students’ perception Mitchell 1990); that compared to men they have
and evaluation of the faculty member’s ability. less access to the networks in which ideas are
generated and evaluated, in which human and
Research Productivity material resources circulate, and in which advan-
tages are exchanged (Fox 1996a); and that they
Research productivity weighs heavily in fac- do not receive the informal information that
ulty evaluations, and numerous studies suggest

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion 741

men do about both the hidden and the visible cian. Cole and Zuckerman (1987) found that
rules of negotiating the social structure of ac- women scientists married to another scientist,
ademe (Etzkowitz et al. 1994). not necessarily in the same discipline, publish
on average 40% more than women married to
The intellectual and social isolation of men in other occupations.
women faculty can affect their research pro-
ductivity in a number of ways. Partly in re- Another factor that can affect research pro-
sponse to the marginalization they perceive, ductivity is access to collaborators (O’Leary
some women faculty may adopt a research style and Mitchell 1990; Fox 1991). Marginalization
that lends itself to less overall productivity. in the social system of academe can make it
Sonnert and Holton (1995b, 1996) found that harder for women to find appropriate collabo-
the female respondents of their survey: 1) felt rators and to establish egalitarian, collegial col-
they were overly careful, even perfectionist, in laborations (Sonnert and Holton 1996). Also,
their research methods; 2) perceived a “less isolation within their home department can
quantity/more quality” approach among their leave women faculty overly dependent on ex-
fellow women scientists; 3) responded that they ternal networks to identify collaborators and to
had a propensity for choosing comprehensive maintain a sense of professional identity (O’Leary
and synthetic work; and 4) held slightly differ- and Mitchell 1990). Furthermore, women may
ent views of what constituted “good science,” be reluctant to collaborate with men for fear
placing greater weight on thoroughness or that they will not receive appropriate credit or
comprehensiveness compared to men. Sonnert visibility for their efforts. Women cannot sim-
and Holton (1995b) speculated that the reason ply turn to other women as collaborators. For
for the different research styles among their re- many, the number of fellow women colleagues
spondents is that women may be more sensi- is so small that this is simply not an option
tized to criticism and therefore try harder to (O’Leary and Mitchell 1990). Also, some aca-
produce work that is above any possibility of demic women may be reluctant to participate in
criticism. However, undertaking comprehen- networks comprised exclusively of women for
sive research projects, accompanied with an at- fear they will be labeled as “feminists” by their
tention to detail, may have longterm dividends male colleagues (O’Leary and Mitchell 1990).
for women faculty. Sonnert (1995b) found that,
although women in biology published less than A related issue is access to graduate students.
their male colleagues, the number of citations Any differences in the ability of women faculty
per article was higher (24.4) for women than compared to male faculty to attract and retain
for men (14.4). Similarly, Long (1992) found graduate students can affect productivity. The
that the average paper by a female biochemist isolation of women faculty may make it less
was cited 1.5 times more often than the average likely that they are recommended as a possible
article by a male. advisor to a student contemplating graduate
school. Also, both male and female students
The effect of marriage on the research pro- may feel that a woman advisor does not have
ductivity of women faculty has garnered con- the stature within the discipline to advance
siderable attention among researchers. Davis their careers. In addition, male graduate stu-
and Astin (1990) noted that married women dents may feel uncomfortable working with fe-
generally published more than single women. male faculty (Yentsch and Sindermann 1992).
They argue that married women, because of
their marital status, are better able to partici- Finally, gender discrimination in the peer re-
pate in important departmental socializing and view process of journals and funding agencies
networking without being perceived as socially cannot be ruled out. In their analysis of the
threatening. Compared to single women, male peer review system of the Swedish Medical Re-
faculty may see married women as “safer” col- search Council, Wennerds and Wold (1997)
leagues (O’Leary and Mitchell 1990). Marriage found that women with equal scientific pro-
may also provide women with valuable intellec- ductivity (measured by total number of pub-
tual stimulation, encouragement, and mentor- lications, number of first-authored publica-
ing from their spouses that can enhance pro- tions, journal impact and prestige, and total
ductivity. Women appear to particularly benefit citations) as male applicants received a lower
from marriage to another scientist or academi- scientific competency rating from peer re-
viewers. They estimated that a female appli-

742 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000

cant had to be 2.5 times more productive than even if unconsciously, on preconceptions and
the average male applicant to be viewed as stereotypes (Olsen et al. 1995).
equally competent.
Women Faculty in Geography—
Perceptions of Accomplishment A Broad Perspective

The literature cited above suggests that lower Are women faculty in the discipline of geogra-
rates of reappointment, tenure, and promotion phy also “frozen in time?” Unfortunately, little
for women faculty, as well as gender-based sal- information is available by gender for many of
ary differences, are in part due to lower re- the parameters required to evaluate this ques-
search productivity of women and, to a lesser tion, such as reappointment, tenure, and pro-
extent, differences in teaching evaluations. Also, motion rates, time in rank, and salary. Also, re-
as noted above, previous investigation suggests search on the quality of the academic work
that women’s research productivity can be af- environment is hindered by the lack of appro-
fected by the intellectual and social isolation priate survey and measurement instruments
they experience within their home depart- (Riger et al.1997). Nonetheless, the represen-
ments, universities, and disciplines. However, tation of women on geography faculties can be
this is not the complete picture. Women are roughly assessed from the departmental listings
still at a disadvantage in terms of rank and sal- found in the Guide to Programs in Geography in
ary, even when controlling for their level of the United States and Canada (published yearly
productivity (Sonnert and Holton 1996). by the Association of American Geographers).
Below, the gender composition of geography
A possible reason for this discrepancy is that faculties for 1997–1998 is compared to similar
the accomplishments of male and female fac- analyses for 1988–1989 (Lee 1990) and 1970
ulty are perceived differently. Sandler (1991) (Zelinsky 1973).
argued that men’s success is typically attributed
to talent, whereas women’s success is more In 1997–1998 women held 16.2% of the
likely to be attributed to luck or affirmative ac- tenure-stream faculty positions within geogra-
tion. Valian (1998a) further argued that women phy departments in the US (Table 1), up from
are less likely to be successful compared to men 4.8% in 1970 (Zelinsky 1973) and 7.8% in
because “gender schemas” (i.e., hypotheses 1988–1989 (Lee 1990). In spite of this substan-
that both men and women hold about what it tial increase, the proportion of women tenure-
means to be male or female) skew our percep- stream faculty was substantially less than
tions and evaluations, causing us to overrate women’s representation in geography graduate
men and underrate women. Relatedly, Etaugh programs. During the ten-year period ending
and Riley (1983) showed that people perceive 1994–1995, 27.0% of the PhD recipients in
women as less competent than men despite in- geography were women (AAG 1997). There
formation indicating that work qualifications does not appear to be a disproportionately
and background are identical. Stereotypes can smaller number of women faculty in more
be so strong that contrary data on performance prestigious departments (Table 1). If anything,
and ability are ignored in the tenure and pro- women are slightly more likely than men to
motion processes (Olsen et al. 1995). Sonnert have a faculty position in a PhD-granting de-
and Holton (1996) suggested that the “burden partment. The average number of women fac-
of proof” is reversed for women faculty. Whereas ulty is smallest (0.8) for BA/BS programs and
men are considered competent scientists until largest (2.5) for PhD departments, partially a
proven otherwise, their female counterparts reflection of department size (Table 1). Few
have to demonstrate their competency fully be- (approximately 20%) geography departments
fore it is generally accepted. Also, because in the US have three or more tenure-stream
women are precluded from informal networks, women faculty members, and approximately
they have greater difficulty informing the de- 43% of the BA/BS programs are still without a
partment of their research activities (Olsen et female faculty member (Table 2).
al. 1995). As a result, departments are likely to
make judgments of women faculty based on The greatest gains in women’s representa-
more limited data compared to similar judg- tion have been made at the level of assistant
ments of male faculty, and to rely more heavily, professor (Table 3). Women now make up 28%

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion 743

Table 1 Female and Male Tenure-Stream Faculty Employed during 1997–1998 in Geography
Departments within the United States, Categorized by Type of Program

Type of Program

BA/BS MA/MS PhD All
Programs

Number of departments 82 77 57 216
Average number of faculty per department* 5.9 8.8 14.7 9.3
Percentage of women faculty** 17.2
Mean number of women faculty per department 13.8 16.6 2.5 16.2
Median number of women faculty per department 0.8 1.5 1.5
Proportion of all female faculty 1 1 2 1
Proportion of all male faculty 44.3
20.6 35.1 41.2 100.0
24.9 33.9 100.0

* Only tenure-stream faculty (i.e., faculty with the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor) were
included in the analysis. Faculty whose ranks were prefaced by “adjunct,” “courtesy,” or “research” or noted as “emeriti”
were not included. Departments that did not provide ranks of faculty were not included in the analysis. Community colleges
were also not included in the analysis.
** Women faculty were identified from recognizably feminine names or knowledge of the faculty member’s gender. The
number of women may be slightly underestimated due to the difficulty in interpreting foreign names.

of the faculty at this rank. However, there has of women with PhDs in geography and in terms
been only a 5% increase in the percentage of of women’s representation in the student body.
women full professors since 1970. The gain has Women faculty remain concentrated at the
been greatest in PhD-granting departments lower ranks, particularly in BA/BS and MA/MS
and least in BA/BS programs, where only 4.0% programs. Furthermore, women faculty in ge-
of full professors are women (Table 4). Women ography are isolated. They rarely have more
continue to be proportionally overrepresented than one female colleague, and most often they
at the lower ranks (Table 5). Whereas 47.7% of are the only woman faculty member in their
the women faculty in 1997–1998 hold the rank department. It remains unclear whether the
of assistant professor, only 23.3% of male faculty one or two women faculty per department are
are at this rank. Instead, 48.5% of the male fac- merely “tokens” hired in response to pressure
ulty have achieved full professor status. These for affirmative action, or whether they repre-
relative proportions are unchanged from 1988– sent the first steps in the slow process of achiev-
1989. Women are somewhat more equitably dis- ing equitable gender representation.
tributed across ranks in PhD departments com-
pared to BA/BS and MA/MS programs (Table 6). Personal Perspective and Advice

The above statistics paint a picture of uneven I am an example of a woman faculty member
progress on gender issues in geography. Al- who had difficulty with the reappointment, ten-
though substantial gains have been made in ure, and promotion process. I obtained a tenure-
both the absolute number and percentage of stream position in a PhD-granting department
women faculty, women are still underrepre- following a one-year instructorship while I was
sented when viewed in terms of the percentage

Table 2 Frequency of Women Faculty in US Geography Departments during 1997–1998,
by Type of Program

Number Number of Departments
of Women
Faculty* BA/BS MA/MS PhD All
Programs

0 35 16 5 56
1 33 31 8 72
28 16 18 42
36 25
40 7 12 13
50 67
60 06 6
11 2

* Only women faculty with the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor are included. See footnotes on
Table 1 for more details on methodology.

744 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000

Table 3 Percent of Tenure-Stream Women Faculty in Geography Departments within
the United States, by Rank

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Tenure-Stream

1997 – 1998 28.3 17.2 8.0 16.2
1988 – 1989* 14.8 9.7 3.1 7.8
1970** 5.1 2.9 4.8
6.2

* From Lee (1990).
** From Zelinsky (1973) as reproduced in Lee (1990). Readers should bear in mind that the statistics for the three time periods
need to be compared cautiously because of: 1) the limitations of inferring tenure-stream appointments from faculty titles only,
2) difficulties in interpreting gender from first names, 3) inconsistencies among the three analyses on whether non-geography
faculty in merged departments are included in the statistics, and 4) changes in the manner in which individual departments
prepare their Guide entry.

completing my dissertation. For the first three nition that results from a short list of publica-
years of my employment in this department, I tions.” I requested that the Dean of the college
was the only woman out of 13 total faculty. In reconsider the faculty decision. My appeal was
my fourth year with the department a second successful, the departmental vote was over-
woman was hired on a shortterm temporary turned, and my appointment was extended.
contract, and during my fifth and last year a However, I quickly reentered the job market,
third woman was hired in a one-year temporary was successful, and moved on to my next aca-
position. At this university, untenured faculty demic position.
were reviewed annually, for which they prepared
a packet of information outlining their activi- Was there something I could have done to
ties during the past year. No external letters of have prevented this painful situation? Cer-
evaluation were requested for reappointment. tainly, greater research productivity would have
The candidate’s performance was discussed at a been helpful, but it is not my biggest regret. My
meeting of all tenured faculty, and the discus- major error was that I was totally unaware of the
sion was followed by a secret ballot. I success- difficulties I was likely to encounter as a women
fully negotiated the renewal process for the faculty member, particularly as the first and
first four years, receiving unanimous votes of only woman in a tenure-stream position. Con-
approval in each of these years. However, dur- sequently, I was able neither to recognize some
ing the fifth year, the last before my tenure re- of the common “traps” that I fell into, nor to
view, the plurality of votes said “no.” The official take proactive measures to better my situation.
letter that I received gave as the two primary
reasons I was not reappointed the “limited inter- The strongest advice that I have for women
nal contribution to the departmental graduate entering academe is to become better informed
program by not being a member of the Gradu- about the intellectual and social isolation
ate Faculty” (I had served as a committee mem- women faculty are likely to encounter. In my
ber on five MA committees and two PhD com- case, I was completely unaware of the possible
mittees in the department and was the advisor consequences of this isolation on my career. To
for one MA student), and, despite the lack of an make matters worse, I associated all literature
external review, “the restricted external recog- on women in academe with feminist criticism,
which I found too extreme and which made me
Table 4 Percentage of Tenure-Stream Faculty uncomfortable. Belatedly, I discovered the large
Who Are Women in US Geography Departments number of excellent surveys and personal ac-
during 1997–1998, by Rank and Type of Program counts of women’s experiences as faculty, and I
strongly urge female graduate students and fac-
Assistant Associate Full ulty to read this literature including such works
Professor Professor Professor as The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Com-
munity (Zuckerman et al. 1991), Who Succeeds in
BA/BS 23.6 14.3 4.0 Science? (Sonnert and Holton 1995b), The
MA/MS 30.2 15.3 8.2 Woman Scientist (Yentsch and Sindermann
PhD 30.6 20.5 9.5 1992), and even Toth’s (1997) tongue-in-cheek
All programs 28.3 17.2 8.0
Ms. Mentor’s Impeccable Advice for Women in Ac-
ademia. Also, in order to minimize their isola-

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion 745

Table 5 Proportional Representation of Male and Female Tenure-Stream Faculty in US Geography
Departments, by Rank

1997 – 1998 1988 – 1989 1970

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Assistant professor 23.3 47.7 21.6 44.5 37.6 50.0

Associate professor 28.2 30.5 28.8 36.5 25.4 27.5

Full professor 48.5 21.8 49.6 19.0 37.0 22.5

tion, women faculty must actively seek out cause their presence means that the all-male as-
women in other departments in their universi- pect of life at the office can no longer be taken
ties and discuss with them difficulties they may for granted (Gallant and Cross 1993). There
be experiencing (see also Hanson 2000). In ad- may also be resentment over real or imagined
dition, women faculty should seek out profes- advantages. My department was under pressure
sional collaborations, especially collaborations to hire a woman. Thus, my gender played a
with other women, as a means of minimizing iso- role in my obtaining my job and, as such, may
lation. In my own case, I knew few women within have been considered by some faculty to have
my university and consequently did not have se- garnered me opportunities that they did not
nior women acquaintances to turn to when I ran have. On several occasions, I was told by my
into difficulties. Also, I only recently discovered colleagues that they did not expect me to stay
the benefits and enjoyment of having women as long. Apparently, they felt that, as a woman in a
professional collaborators, even when they are subspecialty with very few women, I would
located at far distant universities. have opportunities to obtain a better academic
position and that I would soon be leaving to
Women faculty entering academe should take such a position. Even when interviewing at
also be aware that the criteria for selecting an departments with one or more women faculty,
academic position are not always obvious. My job candidates should attempt to evaluate how
choice between the two departments from well integrated the women faculty are within
which I had received job offers was based exclu- the department and how successful they have
sively on the number of faculty within my spe- been. Deliberately ask male faculty whether
cialty area. I blithely ignored the fact that there they have collaborated with female faculty, as-
were other women faculty in the department I certain whether male faculty speak of their fe-
turned down. I have since discovered that I am male colleagues with respect, and find out if
uncomfortable in work environments where I any faculty, especially women faculty, have had
do not have same-sex colleagues, and the most difficulty with the reappointment, tenure, and
enjoyable and friendly departmental social en- promotion process. Also, try to determine if a
vironments for me were the two brief periods woman has held an administrative post (depart-
of my career when I was one of three women mental chair or college dean).
faculty. I urge women faculty, if at all possible,
not to accept positions in departments where Once they have an academic position,
they will be the first or only woman in a tenure- women faculty must be aware of the social fac-
stream position. Not only are they likely to be tors of departments that can impact career ad-
isolated, but they may encounter resistance be- vancement. Like it or not, self-promotion is

Table 6 Proportional Representation of Male and Female Tenure-Stream Faculty in US Geography
Departments during 1997–1998, by Rank and Type of Program

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor

Male Female Male Female Male Female

BA/BS 30.0 58.2 30.0 31.3 40.0 10.5

MA/MS 24.7 53.6 28.0 25.4 47.3 21.0

PhD 18.0 38.2 27.3 34.0 54.7 27.8

All programs 23.3 47.7 28.2 30.5 48.5 21.8

746 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000

part of the academic environment. However, they can be made more difficult by personal
self-promotion can be difficult for women fac- characteristics as well as by the minority status
ulty. McIlwee and Robinson (1992) point out of women in university faculties. My overall re-
that self-promotional behavior is easier for search productivity has admittedly been hin-
men than for most women and may be better dered by my perfectionistic tendencies and my
received by others if it comes from men. Also, sensitivity to criticism, and I have observed
for many male faculty, information on publica- these same characteristics in many other women.
tions, grants awarded, and other achievements I still maintain that a commitment to quality
is passed on to colleagues and administrators work and to undertaking large, complex re-
through informal networks. For faculty outside search problems bears rewards over the course
these networks, this information needs to be of one’s career, but women faculty need to be
communicated more deliberately. Also, women aware that the “minimum publishable unit” can
faculty need to keep their “ear to the ground” have greater immediate benefits. Women fac-
as to who in their department receives salary ulty should also actively seek out collaborations
adjustments, lighter teaching assignments, and as another means to increase their research
other departmental and university resources. productivity. They cannot assume that they
These benefits are not always distributed on will be approached by male colleagues.
merit, but often go to the faculty who have the
gumption to ask for them. An isolated woman All junior faculty should bear in mind that
faculty member is not going to know what to they are expected to “hit the ground running”
ask for unless she deliberately attempts to col- and to keep running at top speed. If they find
lect this information. If a faculty member is not that they do not have the requisite skills, expe-
receiving the benefits and resources that they riences, and contacts to be immediately and
need for a productive career, they should, at a continuously productive, I recommend that
minimum, discuss this with the departmental they consider a postdoctoral position. Many
chairperson. New faculty also need to be aware departments are willing to grant a shortterm
that some departments have unspoken hierar- leave of absence, especially when the opportu-
chies. Untenured faculty members should pick nity can help a junior faculty member learn the
their fights carefully, and argue only for those subtleties of publishing and writing grant pro-
things that directly affect them. They also need posals, initiate research projects, and expand
to be cognizant that the changes that they sug- their circle of contacts. I asked for and received
gest to established procedures may meet with a year’s leave of absence, which I spent at a na-
resistance and even hostility from the faculty tional research laboratory, during the third
who originally formulated those procedures. year I was connected with my department. Al-
though this experience did not immediately
Women faculty also need to be informed benefit me in terms of reappointment, it was a
about the types of student behaviors they may particularly productive period in my career,
experience, so that they do not blame them- and I still maintain many of the contacts that I
selves when students behave badly toward them, established at that time.
and so that they can develop effective class-
room strategies (Sandler 1991). I was not aware Women faculty are in a unique position in
that some of the difficulties I was experiencing regards to service, as they often receive extra
in the classroom, particularly questions of au- service requests because of a need for female
thority, were typical of those that many women representation. These service expectations can
experience. With such an awareness, I might negatively impact the research productivity of
have been able to better balance my efforts be- female faculty, and women are often counseled
tween teaching and research, and might not to reject service requests in order to protect
have been as overwhelmed by students’ written their time for activities that are more highly re-
comments regarding my abilities, my personal garded. In reality, however, untenured faculty
appearance, and—before my marriage—even on cannot reject service or additional teaching as-
my sexuality (“Dr. Winkler is a good professor for signments out of hand. I agree with Park (1996)
a dyke,” read one memorable student evaluation). that such a stance is naïve. It assumes that
women can say no without any negative reper-
Productivity and the issue of quantity versus cussions, which is usually not true. It also ig-
quality are concerns for all junior faculty, but nores the fact that women faculty need to en-

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion 747

gage in teaching and service activities both for isolation women experience. More women fac-
their own growth as individuals and for their ulty will also provide a larger number of female
advancement as a group (Park 1996). Class- role models and greater integration of women
room and advising activities may provide a into their departments. More women faculty
source of human relationship for women that will enhance the opportunities for women to
makes their work more meaningful, and com- establish their own networks, even if male net-
mittee work may fend off feelings of social iso- works remain unavailable to them (Davis and
lation in addition to providing important intel- Astin 1990). The presence of a larger number
lectual and professional contacts (Park 1996). In of women faculty will also broadly benefit aca-
my case, it was the Associate Dean, whom I deme. It will encourage attention to tradition-
knew through a college-level committee assign- ally neglected yet important areas of research
ment, who provided me with the most useful as- (Sonnert 1995a). Equal representation of women
sistance and advice during my appeal process. and men can help counter an elitist image of ac-
Nonetheless, women faculty need to be cogni- ademe (Etzkowitz et al. 1994). The percentage
zant of whether they have unwittingly taken on of women on the faculty correlates positively
additional service due to a greater sense of com- with both male and female students’ overall
munity as compared to their male colleagues. learning and intellectual growth and with stu-
dent retention (Sandler et al. 1996). Women
Finally, with caveats, I counsel faculty to graduate students particularly benefit from
grieve negative reappointment, tenure, and women faculty. Women students with female
promotion decisions if they feel they have ex- major professors view the quality of their inter-
perienced differential treatment. At a mini- actions with their professor and the professor’s
mum, pursue internal college and university concern for their welfare more highly than do
grievance procedures. The appeal process in women graduate students with male advisors
my case was extremely straightforward and (Schroder and Mynatt 1993). Female faculty
brief (less than six weeks), and the successful members also appear to reduce the time spent
outcome went a long way toward restoring my in graduate school by female students (New-
self-confidence. However, if an appeal is not re- mark and Gardecki 1998).
solved at the departmental or college level, then
faculty need to assess very carefully the emo- Some women may find this argument naïve,
tional and financial costs as well as the probabil- as, paradoxically, increasing the number of
ity of success before choosing a course of action. women faculty can have negative consequences.
As O’Leary and Lie (1990) pointed out, the per- Etzkowitz et al. (1994) noted that as the num-
sonal cost of formal grievances is high: they are ber of women faculty increases there is an in-
often not successful; support, whether social, crease in covert forms of resistance to women’s
psychological, legal, or financial, is hard to ob- participation. O’Leary and Mitchell (1990)
tain; colleagues are unlikely to come forward to found that contact with male colleagues de-
help; and the faculty member may experience creased with the proportional representation of
negative consequences even if successful. On women, and that the larger the number of
the other hand, grievance proceedings initiated women faculty the less likely their male admin-
by women faculty do serve to bring about insti- istrators were to encourage any one of them to
tutional change and to smooth the path for seek promotion. Also, disciplines employing
women who come after them (Farley 1990). higher proportions of women tend to suffer a
wage penalty (Bellas 1994). However, to allow
Needed—More Women Faculty! these problems to stand in the way of a more
proportional representation of women in aca-
How can women be more successful in aca- deme would be to “throw the baby out with the
deme? My reading of the literature, along with bath water.”
my personal experiences, leads me to believe
that women faculty will not be reappointed, Increasing the number of women faculty
tenured, or promoted at the same rate as men members requires institutional support, and
until the number of women faculty increases departmental and college administrators need
substantially. The presence of more women to be cognizant of their important role in this
faculty will lessen the intellectual and social process. Unfortunately, I find that administrators
(most of whom are male) continue to be unaware

748 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000

of the impact of their behaviors and polices on to recognize that “reality is by far the greater part
women faculty. They still do not recognize of the balance” (Miller and Wilson 1999, A18).
women’s limited status in academe, even though
research on this topic has been published in re- An Obligation to Speak Up
spected refereed journals (Nature and Science, as
examples), summarized in newspapers and pop- As a mid-career faculty member, I now realize
ular magazines (The New York Times and The that I have been negligent in not speaking up
Economist, for instance), and written, in part, by for women’s right to the same privileges ex-
men (notably Jonathan Cole, Harry Etzkowitz, tended to male faculty. I have not been alone in
and Gerhard Sonnert). Yet, as pointed out by my silence. Many women are reluctant to speak
Etzkowitz et al. (1994), large increases in the up. We are often silenced by concern that if our
number of women usually follow a complete actions are interpreted as feminist, then some
cultural change within a department, generally of our male colleagues may view us negatively
one imposed by the chairperson. (Swim and Cohen 1997). We also worry that
calling attention to difficulties we have experi-
Departmental and college administrators enced could lead to countercharges of special
must be committed to both improving the re- privileges received, devaluing our achieve-
cruitment and the retention of women faculty. ments (Etzkowitz et al. 1994). However, in the
They need to ensure that job searches are truly end we cannot justify our silence. Awareness of
open and recognize that using the traditional gender issues must be increased. As Sonnert
academic grapevine to find applicants can lead (1995a, 56) states, “Although one may suppose
to nepotism. They need to craft job descrip- most male scientists today would not deliber-
tions carefully so that they attract a large, di- ately discriminate against women, there are
verse pool of applicants. They cannot let the many well-intentioned men who have little
small number of women in some of geogra- grasp of the more hidden and complex issues.”
phy’s subspecialities be an excuse for not ac- Virginia Valian, author of Why So Slow? The
tively recruiting women. They must also work Advancement of Women (1998b), reiterates the
toward creating an environment where women same sentiment more forcefully in a recent in-
can be successful. They need to be aware that terview (Angier 1998): “It’s necessary to see
seemingly “neutral” practices can have gen- things as they are if we’re ever to devise effec-
dered outcomes. Departmental and college ad- tive ways of doing something about them.” It is
ministrators also should realize that women tenured women faculty who are in a more se-
faculty are often outside informal networks and cure, and a more knowledgeable, position to
thus rely more heavily on formal avenues of in- initiate these dialogues. By our silence we are
formation exchange. Secretive decision mak- allowing, even condoning, sexist behaviors by
ing, behind-the-scenes bargaining, a quid pro our colleagues. If we want change, we are obli-
quo philosophy, reliance on a few advisors, par- gated to speak up. ᭿
tial disclosure, and single-gender social activi-
ties all work to disadvantage women and other Literature Cited
marginalized faculty. Administrators also have
both an obligation and the authority to repri- Angier, Natalie. 1998. Exploring the gender gap and
mand, even penalize, other faculty for exclu- the absence of equality. New York Times, August
sionary and/or sexist behaviors. Additionally, 25:B10.
administrators need to review their own feel-
ings regarding gender discrimination. In the Ashraf, J. 1996. The influence of gender on faculty
introductory comments to a recent report doc- salaries in the United States, 1969–89. Applied
umenting the fact that senior women faculty at Economics 28:857–64.
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
were not receiving their fair share of lab space, Association of American Geographers (AAG). 1997.
university resources, and salary, Charles Vest, Guide to Programs in Geography in the United States
MIT’s president, commented that he had “al- and Canada 1997–98. Washington, DC: Associa-
ways believed that contemporary gender dis- tion of American Geographers.
crimination within universities is part reality and
part perception,” and that the report caused him Barnett, R.C., P. Carr, A.D. Boisnier, A. Ash, R.H.
Friedman, M.A. Moskowitz, and L. Szalacha.
1998. Relationships of gender and career motiva-
tion to medical faculty members’ production of ac-
ademic publications. Academic Medicine 73:180–6.

Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion 749

Basow, Susan A. 1995. Student evaluations of college cle: Women in the Scientific Community, ed. Harriet
professors: When gender matters. Journal of Edu- Zuckerman, Jonathan R. Cole, and John T. Bruer,
cational Psychology 87:656–65. 188–204. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
———. 1996a. Gender equity. Issues in Science and
Bellas, Marcia L. 1994. Comparable worth in Technology 12:19.
academia—The effects on faculty salaries of the ———. 1996b. Women, academia, and careers in sci-
sex composition and labor-market conditions of ence and engineering. In The Equity Equation: Fos-
academic disciplines. American Sociological Review
59:807 – 21. tering the Advancement of Women in the Sciences,
Mathematics, and Engineering, ed. Cinda-Sue Davis,
———. 1999. Emotional labor in academia: The Angela B. Ginorio, Carol S. Hollenshead, Barbara
case of professors. Annals, American Academy of Po- B. Lazarus, and Paula M. Rayman, 265–89. San
litical and Social Science 561:96–110. Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Gallant, Mary J., and Jay E. Cross. 1993. Wayward
Bennett, S.K. 1982. Student perceptions and expecta- puritans in the ivory tower: Collective aspects of
tions for male and female instructors: Evidence relat- gender discrimination in academia. The Sociological
ing to the question of gender bias in teaching evalua- Quarterly 34:237–56.
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology 74:170–9. Hanson, S. 2000. Networking. Professional Geogra-
pher 52:751–8.
Black, M.M., and E.W. Holden. 1998. The impact of Heckert, Teresa M., Kayla White, Amy M. Gulinson,
gender on productivity and satisfaction among Rebecca K. Schnarre, Linda B. Gannon, and San-
medical school psychologists. Journal of Clinical dra K. Schneider. 1999. Differential treatment in
Psychology in Medical Settings 5:117–31. academia: Do female faculty report being treated
differently by students than male faculty? Psycho-
Bornstein, Phyllis, and Lori Farnsworth. 1998. Gen- logical Reports 85:263–8.
der differences in faculty experiences of interper- Kierstead, D., P. D’Agostino, and H. Dill. 1988. Sex
sonal climate and processes for advancement. Re- role stereotyping of college professors: Bias in stu-
search in Higher Education 39:557–85. dents’ rating of instructors. Journal of Educational
Psychology 80:342–4.
Cole, Jonathan R. 1979. Fair Science: Women in the Lawler, Andrew. 1999. Tenured women battle to
Scientific Community. New York: Columbia Uni- make it less lonely at the top. Science 286:1272–8.
versity Press. Lee, David R. 1990. The status of women in geogra-
phy: Things change, things remain the same. Pro-
———. 1981. Women in science. American Scientist fessional Geographer 42:202–11.
69:385 – 91. Lieberson, Stanley. 1985. Making it Count: The Im-
provement of Social Research and Theory. Berkeley:
Cole, Jonathan R., and Harriet Zuckerman. 1987. University of California Press.
Marriage, motherhood, and research performance Long, J. Scott. 1992. Measures of sex differences in
in science. Scientific American 255:119–25. scientific productivity. Social Forces 71:159–78.
McIlwee, Judith S., and J. Gregg Robinson. 1992.
Davis, Diane E., and Helen S. Astin. 1990. Life cycle,
career patterns and gender stratification in aca- Women in Engineering: Gender, Power and Work-
deme: Breaking myths and exposing truths. In place Culture. Albany: State University of New
Storming the Tower: Women in the Academic World, York Press.
ed. Suzanne S. Lie and Virginia E. O’Leary, 89– Miller, D.W., and Robin Wilson. 1999. MIT ac-
107. New York: Nicholas Publishing. knowledges bias against female faculty members.
The Chronicle of Higher Education 45(30):A18.
Etaugh, C., and S. Riley. 1983. Evaluating compe- Nast, Heidi J., and L. Pulido. 2000. Resisting corpo-
tence of men and women: Effects of marital and rate multiculturalism: Mapping faculty initiatives
parental status and occupational sex-typing. Sex and institutional-student harassment in the class-
Roles 9:943–52. room. Professional Geographer 52:722–37.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1996. Women,
Etzkowitz, Harry, Carol Kemelgor, Michael Neus- minorities, and persons with disabilities in science
chatz, Brian Uzzi, and Joseph Alonzo. 1994. The and engineering: 1996. Available online from http://
paradox of critical mass for women in science. Sci- www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf 96311/5women.htm.
ence 266:51–4. ———. 1998. Women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities in science and engineering: 1998.
Farley, Jennie. 1990. Women professors in the USA: Available online from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/
Where are they? In Storming the Tower: Women in the nsf99338/c5.
Academic World, ed. Suzanne S. Lie and Virginia E. Newmark, D., and R. Gardecki. 1998. Women help-
O’Leary, 194–207. New York: Nicholas Publishing. ing women? Role model and mentoring effects on

Feldman, Kenneth A. 1992. College students’ views
of male and female college teachers. Part I: Evi-
dence from the social laboratory and experiments.
Research in Higher Education 33:317–75.

———. 1993. College students’ views of male and fe-
male college teachers. Part II: Evidence from stu-
dents’ evaluations of their classroom teachers. Re-
search in Higher Education 34:151–91.

Fox, Mary Frank. 1991. Gender, environmental mi-
lieu, and productivity in science. In The Outer Cir-

750 Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000

female PhD students in economics. Journal of Hu- ———. 1995b. Who Succeeds in Science? The Gender
man Resources 33:220–46. Dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer-
O’Leary, Virginia E., and Suzanne Stiver Lie. 1990. sity Press.
Strategies for change. In Storming the Tower:
Women in the Academic World, ed. Suzanne S. Lie ———. 1996. Career patterns of women and men in
and Virginia E. O’Leary, 236–41. New York: the sciences. American Scientist 84:63–71.
Nicholas Publishing.
O’Leary, Virginia E., and Judith M. Mitchell. Sosin, K., J. Rives, and J. West. 1998. Unions and
1990. Women connecting with women: Net- gender pay equity in academe: A study of US insti-
works and mentors. In Storming the Tower: tutions. Feminist Economics 4:25–45.
Women in the Academic World, ed. Suzanne S. Lie
and Virginia E. O’Leary, 58 – 73. New York: Sposito, Garrison. 1992. Promoting science and en-
Nicholas Publishing. gineering careers in academe. In Science and Engi-
Olsen, Deborah, Sue A. Maple, and Frances K. neering Programs: On Target for Women?, ed. Mar-
Stage. 1995. Women and minority faculty job sha Lakes Matyas and Linda Skidmore Dix, 101–
satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education 66:267 – 18. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
93.
Ornstein, M., and P. Stewart. 1996. Gender and fac- Swim, Janet K., and Laurie L. Cohen. 1997. Overt,
ulty pay in Canada. Canadian Journal of Sociology covert, and subtle sexism. Psychology of Women
21:461 – 81. Quarterly 21:103–18.
Park, Shelly M. 1996. Research, teaching, and ser-
vice: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? Journal Toth, Emily. 1997. Ms. Mentor’s Impeccable Advice for
of Higher Education 67:46–84. Women in Academia. Philadelphia: University of
Rausch, D., B. Ortix, R. Douthitt, and L. Reed. 1989. Pennsylvania Press.
The academic revolving door: Why do women get
caught? College and University Personnel Association Toutkoushian, Robert K. 1998. Sex matters less for
Journal 40:1–16. younger faculty: Evidence of disaggregate pay dis-
Richard, G., and T. Krieshok. 1989. Occupational parities from the 1988 and 1993 NCES surveys.
stress, strain, and coping in university faculty. Economics of Education Review 17:55–71.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 34:117–32.
Riger, Stephanie, Joseph Stokes, Sheela Raja, and Valian, Virginia. 1998a. Sex, schemas, and success:
Megan Sullivan. 1997. Measuring perceptions of What’s keeping women back? Academe 84:50–5.
the work environment for female faculty. The Re-
view of Higher Education 21:63–78. ———. 1998b. Why So Slow? Cambridge: MIT
Sandler, Bernice R. 1991. Women faculty at work in Press.
the classroom, or why it still hurts to be a woman
in labor. Communication Education 40:6–15. Wennerds, Christine, and Agnes Wold. 1997. Nepo-
Sandler, Bernice R., Lisa. A. Silverberg, and Ro- tism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 387:341–3.
berta M. Hall. 1996. The Chilly Classroom Climate:
A Guide to Improve the Education of Women. Wash- West, Martha S. 1995. Frozen in time. Academe
ington, DC: The National Association for 81:26 – 9.
Women in Education.
Schneider, Alison. 1998. Why don’t women publish Winkler, Julie A., Donna Tucker, and Anne K. Smith.
as much as men. The Chronicle of Higher Education 1996. Salaries and advancement of women faculty
45(3):A14 – 6. in atmospheric science: Some reasons for concern.
Schroder, Debra S., and Clifford R. Mynatt. 1993. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77:
Female graduate students’ perceptions of their in- 473 – 90.
teractions with male and female major professors.
Journal of Higher Education 64:555–73. Yentsch, Clarice M., and Carl. J. Sindermann. 1992.
Sonnert, Gerhard. 1995a. Gender equity in science: The Woman Scientist: Meeting the Challenges for a
Still an elusive goal. Issues in Science and Technology Successful Career. New York: Plenum Press.
12:53 – 8.
———. 1995b. What makes a good scientist?: Deter- Zelinsky, Wilbur. 1973. Women in geography: A
minants of peer evaluation among biologists. So- brief factual account. Professional Geographer 25:
cial Studies of Science 25:35–55. 151 – 65.
Sonnert, Gerhard, and Gerald Holton. 1995a.
Zuckerman, Harriet. 1991. The careers of men and
Gender Differences in Science Careers: The Project women scientists: A review of current research. In
Access Study. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni- The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Commu-
versity Press. nity, ed. Harriet Zuckerman, Jonathan R. Cole,
and John T. Bruer, 27–56. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.

Zuckerman, Harriet, Jonathan R. Cole, and John T.
Bruer, eds. 1991. The Outer Circle: Women in the
Scientific Community. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.

JULIE WINKLER is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Geography, Michigan State Univer-
sity, East Lansing, MI 48824-1115. E-mail: winkler@
msu.edu. Her research interests include synoptic cli-
matology, convection and severe storms, climate vari-
ability, and physical geography.