Bibliography of Bias in Evaluation: Professional Climate

  1. The University of Pennsylvania Gender Equity Committee. (2001, December 4). "The Gender Equity Report." The University of Pennsylvania Almanac, 48. Full Article: https://almanac.upenn.edu/archive/v48/n14/GenderEquity.html
    Keywords: resource allocation, adjunct faculty, lecturer, non tenure-track, satisfaction/perception survey, recruiting, retention
    Summary: inds that the number of women faculty is commensurate with the number of women in the PhD pool, but men are over-represented in higher academic ranks.

  2. Llewellyn, D., Usselman, M., and Brown, A. (2001). “ Institutional Self-Assessments as Change Agents: Georgia Tech’s Two Year Experience.” Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Session 2592.
    Keywords: gender bias, environment
    Summary: Summarizes the efforts and findings of multiple pushes for change on the Georgia Institute of Technology campus aimed at making the Georgia Tech environment more friendly for women. Summarizes what each committee studied and what the results of these studies were and evaluates what must be done to provide further campus improvement for women.
     
  3. Reskin, Barbara. (1978). “Sex Differentiation and the Social Organization of Science.” Sociological Inquiry 48: pp. 491-504.
    Keywords: sex differentiation, stratification, scientific careers
    Summary: Considers how the organization of environments affects female and male scientists and how it differentiates them. Discusses specific environmental features that interact with stratification to produce differentiation between men and women scientists.
     
  4. Sonnert, Gerhard. (1999). “Women in Science and Engineering: Advances, Challenges, and Solutions.” The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 869: pp. 35-57.
    Keywords: omen in science and engineering, leaky pipeline, history of women in science and engineering
    Summary: Summarizes the historical and present basis for supporting women in science and engineering and highlights the common obstacles that face women in science and engineering at different points in their careers. Makes suggestions for how to further promote women in science and engineering disciplines.
     
  5. Sonnert, Gerhard and Holton, Gerald. (1995). Gender Differences in Science Careers. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
    Keywords: gender, science, careers, glass ceiling
    Summary: Summarizes the results of a study done to evaluate gender differences in science careers from the standpoint of women as "strangers" in science. Concludes that women scientists have gained much in the past few decades, and also finds that field affects women's experiences in science careers. Finds that women still face obstacles that men do not, but these obstacles are less pervasive and obvious than they once were.
     

  6. Olsen, Deborah. (July 1993). “Work Satisfaction and Stress in the First and Third Year of Academic Appointment.” The Journal of Higher Education 64: pp. 453-471. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2960052
    Keywords: balance, stress, rewards, satisfaction
    Summary: Newly hired tenure-track faculty were interviewed in the first and third year of appointment. Findings indicated a decrease in job satisfaction and increase in job-related stress. Factors driving stress and satisfaction varied over time. Understanding junior faculty needs can enhance faculty development efforts at this critical stage.

  7. Toma, J. Douglas. (November 1997). “Alternative Inquiry Paradigms, Faculty Cultures, and the Definition of Academic Lives.” The Journal of Higher Education 68: pp. 679-705. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2959968
    Keywords: disciplinary differences
    Summary: Using qualitative methods, I explore how paradigm choices influence scholars' professional lives in a single discipline, law. I contend there is a paradigm culture that operates in conjunction with other faculty cultures and suggest where my findings might extend to related disciplines, particularly those in the social sciences.

  8. Neumann, Yoram and Finaly-Neumann, Edith. (September 1990). “The Support-Stress Paradigm and Faculty Research Publication.” The Journal of Higher Education 61: pp. 565-580. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1981977
    Keywords: family issues, productivity
    Summary: This study develops and tests a model that examines the relative powers of support and work stress indicators in explaining faculty research productivity. The empirical examination indicates that the model is the most influential in physics and the least influential in education and that different indicators play important roles in determining faculty research publication in hard and soft sciences.

  9. Chalmers, E. L. Jr. (October 1972). “Achieving Equity for Women in Higher Education Graduate Enrollment and Faculty Status.” The Journal of Higher Education 43:pp. 517-524. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1980739
    Keywords: gender bias, nepotism
    Summary Examines the explanations of the disproportional employment of women at upper professorial ranks. Considers alleged cases of discrimination against women.

  10. Saha, Lawrence J. (January 1976). “How Divisive Are Left-Wing Academics? An Australian Test.” Sociology of Education 49: pp. 80-89. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112396
    Keywords: political bias, religious bias
    Summary: Academics with left-wing political orientations are sometimes seen as a divisive threat to traditional scholarly values and behavior. To test this proposition academics from a major Australian university were sampled. Left-wing academics had lower social origins and lacked religious affiliation. They shared with their more conservative colleagues a strong commitment to traditional academic values, but more strongly supported the exercise of academic and student freedoms and were more likely to combine teaching, research, and organizational activities. Far from being divisive, academics with left-wing orientations in Australia appear the most supportive of traditional academic structures and the most successful in integrating the multiple demands of an academic role.

Collegiality

  1. Singer, Michelle. (2002, November 20). "Collegiality and the Weasel Clause." The Chronicle of Higher Education: Career Network.
    Keywords: collegiality, subjectivity, loophole, professional standards
    Summary: Describes the process of being denied tenure on subjective, unspecified grounds, and describes the appeal process, job search, and adjunct work that follows.
     
  2. Fox, Mar Frank. (1991). "Gender, Environmental Milieu, and Productivity in Science." In H. Zuckerman, J. Cole and J. Bruer (Eds.), The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community (pp. 188-204). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
    Keywords: gender, work climate, collegial interaction, evaluation, productivity, performance
    Summary: Addresses the relationship between gender, productivity in science, and social/organizational environments of academic departments, institutions, and communities. Analyzes the ways organizational signals, resources, evaluative and reward schemes, and networks of communication and exchange affect outcomes of participation and performance for women and men in science.
     

  3. Clark, Shirley M. and Corcoran, Mary. (January 1986). “Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty: A Case of Accumulating Disadvantage?” The Journal of Higher Education 57: pp. 20-43. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1981464
    Keywords: faculty interactions, sponsorship
    Summary: This article employs a professional socialization model to interpret the recollections of women faculty about their career decisions and early career experiences. The results point to a pattern of accumulative disadvantage and suggest how sponsorship of women faculty may be improved.

  4. Reskin, Barbara. (July 1979). “Academic Sponsorship and Scientists’ Careers.” Sociology of Education 52: pp.129-146. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112319
    Keywords: productivity, scholarship
    Summary: Scientists' academic sponsors might influence their students' careers through the quality of training they provide and through their ability to transmit to their students a professional status and other ascriptive advantages. Using data for a probability sample of doctoral chemists, this study explores the effects of scientists' Ph.D. departments and several characteristics of their doctoral sponsors on their scientific productivity and positions over their first postdoctoral decade. Sponsorship appears to play a vital role in the chemists' careers. Their sponsors' productivity affected sample members' predoctoral productivity, and the caliber of their Ph.D. department affected their postdoctoral productivity. Although measures of the quality of their training did not affect the setting (university versus other employer) of the chemists' jobs, two measures of their sponsors' professional stature were consequential. These results suggest ascriptive effects of doctoral sponsorship, independent of the effects of sponsors' performance, the calibre of the Ph.D. department, and the chemists' own productivity.

Recognition

  1. Evetts, Julia. (1996). Gender and Career in Science and Engineering. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
    Keywords: workplace culture, professional identity, gender identity
    Summary: Discusses how professional identities frequently incorporate gender (ie. women scientist), and how workplace cultures in science and engineering are built on this distinction.
     
  2. Long, J.S., Allison, P., and McGinnins, R. (1995). “Rank Advancement in Academic Careers: Sex Differences and the effects of Productivity.” American Sociological Review 58: pp. 45-71.
    Keywords: sociology of science, women in science, promotion and tenure, gender and science
    Summary: Analyzes the careers of academic scientists in terms of promotion and tenure. Investigates why women advance at a slower pace and what this means for women scientists.
     
  3. Pheterson, G.T., Kiesler, S.B., and Goldberg, P.A.(1971). "Evaluation of the Performance of Women as a Function of their Sex, Achievement, and Personal History." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19: pp. 110-114.
    Keywords: psychology, performance bias
    Summary: Investigates the undervaluing of work done by women as compared to men. Authors conducted an experiment that revealed bias against women by asking participants to evaluate a painting after being told it was painted by either a man or a woman.
     
  4. Rayman, Paula and Stewart, Julie Pearson. (1999). “Reaching for Success in Science: Women’s Uneven Journey.” The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869: pp. 58-65.
    Keywords: history of women in science, progress of women scientists, equal opportunities, history of women in engineering
    Summary: Reviews women’s experiences in sciences and engineering over the last few decades, highlighting progress as well as setbacks in the fight for equal opportunities.
     

  5. Lomperis, A.M.T. (November 1990). “Are Women Changing the Nature of the Academic Profession?” The Journal of Higher Education 61: pp. 643- 677. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1981989
    Keywords: gender bias, status
    Summary: Analyzing supply and demand side evidence since the 1970s, this study concludes that the increased presence of women in the academic profession has been most marked in fields abandoned and off-track positions historically avoided by academic men, which has profoundly affected the nature of the academy itself.

  6. Tien, Flora F. and Blackburn, Robert T. (January 1996). “Faculty Rank System, Research Motivation, and Faculty Research Productivity: Measure Refinement and Theory Testing.” The Journal of Higher Education 67: pp.2-22. Full Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2943901
    Keywords: rewards, research
    Summary: This study explores the relationship between the traditional system of faculty ranks and faculty research productivity from the perspectives of behavioral reinforcement theory and of selection function. We generated and tested six hypotheses, using data from the 1989 Carnegie survey of faculty. The results failed to support completely either the reinforcement schedule theory or the selection function.