- freely available
Soc. Sci. 2017, 6(1), 25; doi:10.3390/socsci6010025
2. Existing Research on Collaboration
2.1. Research Collaboration
2.2. Valuing Collaboration
2.3. Collaboration in Career Development
3. The Present Study: Institutional Context and Methods
4.1. Resources for Collaboration
STEM faculty men looked for additional resources that would allow them to develop more robust interdisciplinary collaborations. Assistant men also noted that the lack of university-supported research assistants made it difficult for them to get their collaborative research programs off the ground: “the absence of RA-ships for graduate students makes it difficult to attract graduate students without [my] already having grants.” Assistant men suggested that support for interdisciplinary RAs and postdocs would be a major resource that would help facilitate collaboration across units or faculty at the university. While many of the assistant women in our focus groups came from engineering and lab science fields that emphasize collaboration, they did not make the same claims for internal funding for RAs and postdocs.My work is very interdisciplinary. There’s not much chance to interact with other departments. The exception is [interdisciplinary program with] cross-college faculty members. Faculty share what they are doing, but beyond that, is there other support? There are no seed grants for working together. This is discouraging.
Another assistant woman similarly noted, “I feel like [the university] is shooting itself in the foot with that. If collaborative grants were valued and you could still show your independent contributions, it would cost the university a lot less money in terms of start-ups and having to hire people.” Devaluing collaborative grants left these faculty feeling uncertain about how to carry out their research programs, given tensions between collaborative funding opportunities but emphasis on individual grant-getting at the university.It’s not olden days for funding. Everyone is trying to be in a silo to write grants, and [they are] not going to get funded. Interdisciplinary efforts get funded…saying you won’t get promoted if [you are] co-investigator or co-PI on the grant…is throwing the baby out with bathwater.
A full professor who is a woman similarly argued that “disciplinary flagship journals are valued more than interdisciplinary journals,” leading to a conversation about how external letter writers might review interdisciplinary faculty poorly who are up for tenure and promotion if judging simply by the standards of their field. We also heard from a woman associate professor who felt that since external reviewers are usually within the field, “if someone has a big interdisciplinary focus,” it would be challenging to find external reviewers who do not judge them primarily on “what they are doing for the field.” This suggests that doing interdisciplinary research is not entirely recognized in tenure and promotion decision.It would almost be politically incorrect to say we do not support interdisciplinary research. I think we are open verbally…the [research] literature they are bringing in [to their paper] is [interdisciplinary], but the co-authorships are not. Again, coming back to the cultural impediments, high impact journals are the ones that are very field and disciplinary specific, no matter how interdisciplinary, that is where you are going to get published and read, not in interdisciplinary venues. There is a conflict there.
This is very challenging for faculty members trying to ensure both research funding and promotion.the advice I got was to work on my own work. They don’t really count much of these collaborative papers unless it’s your students, your name. If you’re the co-PI on a collaborative grant, the money is kind of discounted, especially related to tenure and promotion.
Here, junior women have created a peer mentoring program to provide each other with support that had been missing within their department. Another group of associate women discussed a previous mentoring program funded by an external grant that was no longer active because the funding had ended:We felt a little frustrated in our department, and we had no senior women faculty at the time, so we did a College…mentoring group for women that focused on issues of research, teaching, work-life balance. Women of all ranks were included.
we all shared a love of the mentoring program we had pre-tenure and…that is lacking, post-tenure…it was so productive, we would all like to see an effort, built in structurally. It needs to be institutionalized, can’t be just depending on funding, gone away the next year.
I do get [feedback], if I bug them, like [on] a grant, I ask them to read my grant…but they are both senior people. I don’t feel that connection, maybe [I have questions about] very stupid things about student, [they’ll say] ‘learn to deal with it,’ no real suggestions. There is no real understanding between my situation and their situation.”
Funding is tight these days. It’s sometimes hard to get mentoring around grants because senior faculty without funding may not have gotten a grant in this climate. Now people are scrambling to find a way to sustain funding in a new environment, people who before had these massive labs, just don’t.
Conflicts of Interest
- What support for peer mentoring exists (if any) in your department?
- How are decisions made in your department—do you think decisions are made hierarchically, or more collectively? (for example, do chairs consult and make decisions, do committees decide/ how are committees selected)Q2B. Relatedly, how much transparency would you say exists around personnel decisions in your department? (promotion, tenure, merit, distinguished, teaching awards)
- In your own work, do you engage in interdisciplinary research?Q3A. Do you see interdisciplinary research as supported by your department? (i.e., How do you think interdisciplinary research will come into play when it comes time for tenure review?)
- What do you think the general level of satisfaction is among faculty in your department? (why?)
- What barriers do you perceive to faculty work?
- Are these data surprising? Why do you think there is a gender gap?
- What recommendations do you have for interventions to address perceived barriers to faculty work?Q7A. Are there ways that decision-making could be improved?Q7B. Would you recommend additional support for interdisciplinary research, and if so how?
- Kathrin Zippel. Women in Global Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Benjamin F. Jones, Stefan Wuchty, and Brian Uzzi. “Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science.” Science 322 (2008): 1259–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stefan Wuchty, Benjamin F. Jones, and Brian Uzzi. “The Incresing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge.” Science 80 (2007): 1036–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott E. Page. The Difference: How The Power Of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kathy E. Kram, and Lynn A. Isabella. “Mentoring Alternatives: The Role of Peer Relationships in Career Development.” The Academy of Management Journal 28 (1985): 110–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberta G. Sands, L. Alayne Parson, and Josann Duane. “Faculty Mentoring Faculty in a Public University.” The Journal of Higher Education 62 (1991): 174–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mary Deane Sorcinelli, and Jung Yun. “From Mentor to Mentoring Networks: Mentoring in the New Academy.” Change 31 (2007): 55–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cecilia L. Ridgeway. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues 57 (2001): 637–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cecilia L. Ridgeway. Framed by Gender. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Cecilia L. Ridgeway. “Why Status Matters for Inequality.” American Sociological Review 79 (2014): 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Julie Des Jardins. The Madame Curie Complex: The Hidden History of Women in Science. New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Barry Bozeman, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. “Research Collaboration in Universities and Academic Entrepreneurship: The-State-of-the-Art.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 38 (2013): 1–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry Bozeman, and Elizabeth Corley. “Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital.” Research Policy 33 (2004): 599–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonathon N. Cummings, and Sara Kiesler. “Collaborative Research across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries.” Social Studies of Science 35 (2005): 703–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mary Frank Fox, and Sushanta Mohapatra. “Social-Organizational Characteristics of Work and Publication Productivity among Academic Scientists in Doctoral-Granting Departments.” The Journal of Higher Education 78 (2007): 542–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- COACHE. Benchmark Best Practices: Interdisciplinary Work & Collaboration. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- J. Sylvan Katz, and Ben R. Martin. “What is research collaboration? ” Research Policy 26 (1997): 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sooho Lee, and Barry Bozeman. “The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity.” Social Studies of Science 35 (2005): 673–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takeshi Okada, and Herbert A. Simon. “Collaborative Discovery in a Scientific Domain.” Cognitive Science 21 (1997): 109–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susannah B. F. Paletz, and Christian D. Schunn. “A Social-Cognitive Framework of Multidisciplinary Team Innovation.” Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (2010): 73–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alan L. Porter, and Ismael Rafols. “Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time.” Scientometrics 81 (2009): 719–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diana Rhoten. “Interdisciplinary Research: Trend or Transition.” Items & Issues 5 (2004): 6–11. [Google Scholar]
- Diana Rhoten, Erin O’Connor, and Edward J. Hackett. “The Act of Collaborative Creation and the Art of Integrative Creativity: Originality, Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity.” Thesis Eleven 96 (2009): 83–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deborah Zucker. “Developing your Career in an Age of Team-Science.” Journal of Investigative Medicine 60 (2012): 779–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, and Gianluca Murgia. “Gender differences in research collaboration.” Journal of Informetrics 7 (2013): 811–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Rijnsoever, Frank J., and Laurens K. Hessels. “Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration.” Research Policy 40 (2011): 463–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erin Leahey, Jason Lee Crockett, and Laura A. Hunter. “Gendered Academic Careers: Specializing for Success? ” Social Forces 86 (2008): 1273–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diana Rhoten, and Stephanie Pfirman. “Women, science, and interdisciplinary ways of working.” Research Policy 36 (2007): 56–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John M. McDowell, Larry D. Singell, and Mark Stater. “Two To Tango? Gender Differences in the Decisions To Publish and Coauthor.” Economic Inquiry 44 (2006): 153–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barry Bozeman, and Monica Gaughan. “How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers.” Research Policy 40 (2011): 1393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisa M. Frehill, and Kathrin Zippel. “Survey of Doctorate Recipients, 2006: Findings on International Collaborations of Academic Scientists and Engineers.” 2010. Available online: http://docplayer.net/8450958-Survey-of-doctorate-recipients-2006-findings-on-international-collaborations-of-academic-scientists-and-engineers.html (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- Stephanie Pfirman, and Diana Rhoten. “A meta-analysis of data on the association of women and minorities with interdisciplinarity.” 2007. Available online: http://bcrw.barnard.edu/event/women-minorities-and-interdisciplinarity-transforming-the-research-enterprise/ (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- Stephanie Pfirman, and Diana Rhoten. “Women, Minorities and Interdisciplinarity: Transforming the Research Enterprise.” In Report from a workshop at Columbia University, New York, NY, USA, 12–13 November 2007.
- Elizabeth Corley, and Monica Gaughan. “Scientists’ participation in university research centers: What are the gender differences? ” Journal of Technology Transfer 30 (2005): 371–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarah Mann. “Team-Based Science Increases, But Promotion and Tenure Policies Lag Behind.” Available online: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/jan2013/325 (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- Victoria McGovern. “Perspective: How to Succeed in Big Science and Still Get Tenure.” Science, 31 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Phyllis L. Carr, Linda Pololi, Sharon Knight, and Peter Conrad. “Collaboration in Academic Medicine: Reflections on Gender and Advancement.” Academic Medicine 84 (2009): 1447–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mary Frank Fox, and Catherine A. Faver. “Independence and cooperation in research: The motivations and costs of collaboration.” The Journal of Higher Education 55 (1984): 347–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grit Laudel. “Collaboration and reward.” Beaver 11 (2002): 3–15. [Google Scholar]
- Catherine Hill, Christianne Corbett, and Andresse St. Rose. “Why So Few? Women In Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics.” 2010. Available online: http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Why-So-Few-Women-in-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-Mathematics.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- Catherine Hill, and Christianne Corbett. “Solving The Equation—The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing.” 2015. Available online: http://www.aauw.org/resource/get-the-solving-the-equation-report/ (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- National Academies. “Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering.” 2006. Available online: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_054743.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- Susan Sturm. “The Architecture of Inclusion: Advancing Workplace Equity in Higher Education.” Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 29 (2006): 248–334. [Google Scholar]
- Nilanjana Dasgupta. “Ingroup Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self-Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model.” Psychological Inquiry 22 (2011): 231–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilanjana Dasgupta, and Jane G. Stout. “Girls and Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: STEMing the Tide and Broadening Participation in STEM Careers.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 (2014): 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alice H. Eagly, and Steven J. Karau. “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (2002): 573–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Virginia Valian. “Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia.” NWSA Journal 16 (2004): 207–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephen Benard, and Shelley J. Correll. “Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty.” Gender & Society 24 (2010): 616–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monica Biernat, and Kathleen Fuegen. “Shifting Standards and the Evaluation of Competence: Complexity in Gender-Based Judgment and Decision Making.” Journal of Social Issues 57 (2001): 707–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shelley J. Correll, Stephen Benard, and In Paik. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty? ” American Journal of Sociology 112 (2007): 1297–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claudia Goldin, and Cecilia Rouse. “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians.” American Economic Review 90 (2000): 715–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexander H. Jordan, and Emily M. Zitek. “Marital Status Bias in Perceptions of Employees.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 34 (2012): 474–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (2012): 16474–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rhea E. Steinpreis, Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke. “The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study.” Sex Roles 41 (1999): 509–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eric Luis Uhlmann, and Geoffrey L. Cohen. “Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination.” Psychological Science 16 (2005): 474–80. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Frances Trix, and Carolyn Psenka. “Recommendation for Female and Male.” Discourse & Society 13 (2003): 191–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juan M. Madera, Michelle R. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin. “Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2009): 1591–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toni Schmader, Jessica Whitehead, and Vicki H. Wysocki. “A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants.” Sex Roles 57 (2008): 509–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christine Wenneras, and Agnes Wold. “Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.” Nature 387 (1997): 341–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Romy Van Der Lee, and Naomi Ellemers. “Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (2015): 12349–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amber E. Budden, Tom Tregenza, Lonnie W. Aarssen, Julia Koricheva, Roosa Leimu, and Christopher J. Lortie. “Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23 (2008): 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martha Foschi. “Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996): 237–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madeline E. Heilman, Aaron S. Wallen, Daniella Fuchs, and Melinda M. Tamkins. “Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (2004): 416–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- James L. Hilton, and William Von Hippel. “Stereotypes.” Annual Review of Psychology 47 (1996): 237–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gordon Hodson, John F. Dovidio, and Samuel L. Gaertner. “Processes in Racial Discrimination: Differential Weighting of Conflicting Information.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2002): 460–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linda L. Carli, Laila Alawa, YoonAh Lee, Bei Zhao, and Elaine Kim. “Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women Scientists.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 40 (2016): 244–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louise August, and Jean Waltman. “Culture, Climate, and Contribution: Career Satisfaction among Female Faculty.” Research in Higher Education 45 (2004): 177–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sue V. Rosser. “Using POWRE to ADVANCE: Institutional Barriers Identified by Women Scientists and Engineers.” NWSA Journal 16 (2004): 50–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- J. Scott Long, and Mary Frank Fox. “Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism.” Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1995): 45–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carol Kemelgor, and Henry Etzkowitz. “Overcoming Isolation: Women’s Dilemmas in American Academic Science.” Minerva 39 (2001): 153–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monica C. Higgins. “The More, the Merrier? Multiple Developmental Relationships and Work Satisfaction.” Journal of Management Development 19 (2000): 277–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristen Monroe, Saba Ozyurt, Ted Wrigley, and Amy Alexander. “Gender Equality in Academia: Bad News from the Trenches, and Some Possible Solutions.” Perspectives on Politics 6 (2008): 215–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mary Frank Fox. “Institutional Transformation and the Advancement of Women Faculty: The Case of Academic Science and Engineering.” Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research 23 (2008): 73–103. [Google Scholar]
- Mary Deane Sorcinelli, and Jung H. Yun. “When Mentoring Is the Medium: Lessons Learned from a Faculty Development Initiative.” To Improve the Academy 27 (2009): 365–84. [Google Scholar]
- Pamela Holland Obiomon, Virginia Cook Tickles, Adrienne Holland Wowo, and Shirley Holland-Hunt. “Advancement of Women of Color in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Disciplines.” In Paper presented at Advancing Women and the Underrepresented in the Academy Symposium, Johnson C. Smith University, Charlotte, NC, USA, 16–17 November 2007.
- Joan C. Williams, Katherine W. Phillips, and Erika V. Hall. Double Jeopardy: Gender Bias against Women of Color in Science. Berkeley: UC Hastings College of Law, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Joya Misra, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, and Abby Templer. “Gender, Work Time, and Care Responsibilities Among Faculty.” Sociological Forum 27 (2012): 300–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abigail J. Stewart, Janet Malley, and Danielle LaVaque-Manty. Transforming Science and Engineering: Advancing Academic Women. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Diana Bilimoria, and Linley Lord. Women in STEM Careers: International Perspectives on Increasing Workforce Participation, Advancement and Leadership. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Patricia A. Roos, and Mary L. Gatta. “Gender (In)equity in the Academy: Subtle Mechanisms and the Production of Inequality.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 27 (2009): 177–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margaret B. Bailey, Carol Elizabeth Marchetti, Elizabeth A. DeBartolo, Jacqueline R. Mozrall, Gina M. Williams, Stefi Baum, and Steven LaLonde. “Establishing the Foundation for Future Organizational Reform and Transformation at a Large Private University to Expand the Representation of Women Faculty.” In Paper presented at the 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 26–29 June 2011.
- Diana Bilimoria, Simy Joy, and Xiangfen Liang. “Breaking Barriers and Creating Inclusiveness: Lessons of Organizational Transformation to Advance Women Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering.” Human Resource Management 45 (2008): 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cindy L. Cain, and Erin Leahey. “Cultural Correlates of Gender Integration in Science.” Gender, Work & Organization 21 (2014): 516–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirley M. Clark, and Mary Corcoran. “Perspectives on the Professional Socialization of Women Faculty: A Case of Accumulative Disadvantage? ” The Journal of Higher Education 57 (1986): 20–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mary Frank Fox. “Women and Men Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering: Social-Organizational Indicators and Implications.” American Behavioral Scientist 53 (2010): 997–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isis H. Settles, Lilia M. Cortina, Janet Malley, and Abigail J. Stewart. “The Climate for Women in Academic Science: The Good, the Bad, and the Changeable.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30 (2006): 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yonghong Jade Xu. “Gender Disparity in STEM Disciplines: A Study of Faculty Attrition and Turnover Intentions.” Research in Higher Education 49 (2008): 607–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandra Acker, and Carmen Armenti. “Sleepless in Academia.” Gender and Education 16 (2004): 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roger Baldwin, Deborah DeZure, Allyn Shaw, and Kristin Moretto. “Mapping the Terrain of Mid-Career Faculty at a Research University: Implications for Faculty and Academic Leaders.” Change 40 (2008): 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karen Branch-Brioso. “Keeping Pace, but Not Catching Up.” Diverse: Issues in Higher Education 26 (2009): 7–12. [Google Scholar]
- George F. Dreher, and Taylor H. Cox. “Race, Gender, and Opportunity: A Study of Compensation Attainment and the Establishment of Mentoring Relationships.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (1996): 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robyn Marschke, Sandra Laursen, Joyce McCarl Nielsen, and Patricia Dunn-Rankin. “Demographic Inertia Revisited: An Immodest Proposal to Achieve Equitable Gender Representation among Faculty in Higher Education.” The Journal of Higher Education 78 (2007): 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kathleen M. Quinlan, and Gerlese S. Åkerlind. “Factors Affecting Departmental Peer Collaboration for Faculty Development : Two Cases in Context.” Higher Education 40 (2000): 23–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mary Deane Sorcinelli, and Jung H. Yun. “Finding a Mentor.” NEA Higher Education Advocate 26 (2009): 5–8. [Google Scholar]
- Mary Feng, Christine Hailey, R Ryan Dupont, and Kim Sullivan. “Recruiting and Retaining Engineering Female Faculty at Utah State University.” ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. 2005. Available online: https://peer.asee.org/recruiting-and-retaining-female-faculty-at-utah-state-university.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2016).
- Jo Handelsman, Nancy Cantor, Molly Carnes, Denice Denton, Eve Fine, Barbara Grosz, Virginia Hinshaw, Cora Marrett, Sue Rosser, Donna Shalala, and Jennifer Sheridan. “More Women in Science.” Science 309 (2005): 1190–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christine Hult, Ronda Callister, and Kim Sullivan. “Is There a Global Warming Toward Women in Academia? ” Liberal Education 91 (2005): 50–57. [Google Scholar]
- Melissa Latimer, Kasi Jackson, Lisa Dilks, James Nolan, and Leslie Tower. “Organizational Change and Gender Equity in Academia: Using Dialogical Change to Promote Positive Departmental Climates.” Gender Transformation in the Academy: Advances in Gender Research 19 (2014): 333–85. [Google Scholar]
- Sandra Laursen, and Bill Rocque. “Faculty Development for Institutional Change: Lessons from an Advance Project.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 41 (2009): 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 1We posit that addressing the mismatch between collaboration and university hierarchy will also have benefits for faculty members from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; however this paper focuses on gendered processes exclusively, given the small numbers of URM and international faculty represented in this data.
|Rank & Gender of Focus Group||Field|
|Assistant Men||Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Political Science, Psychological and Brain Sciences|
|Assistant Women||Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Economics, Environmental Conservation, Geosciences, Linguistics, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Microbiology, Physics, Psychological and Brain Sciences, Resource Economics, Sociology|
|Associate Men||Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Chemistry, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Computer Science, Economics, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, Sociology|
|Associate Women||Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Ecological Conservation, Math and Statistics, Physics, Psychological and Brain Sciences, Sociology|
|Full Men||Astronomy, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Linguistics, Management, Math and Statistics, Political Science, Physics, Psychological and Brain Sciences, Sociology|
|Full Women||Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Economics, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Geosciences, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, Physics, Political Science, Psychological and Brain Sciences, Sociology|
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).