Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T15:32:47.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three Dilemmas for Academics: Gender Disparities in Scholarship, Teaching, and Service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

Kimberly T. Schneider  and
Phanikiran Radhakrishnan
Kimberly T. Schneider*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University
Phanikiran Radhakrishnan
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of Toronto at Scarborough
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberly T. Schneider, Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Campus Box 4620, Normal, IL 61790. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Research on gender differences in the allocation and evaluation of three main components of academic work (i.e., research, teaching, and service) is very informative, and we argue that it may point to potential sources of the disparity in academic industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists’ experiences. We also propose the addition of a few issues to the research agenda set forth by Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) with the belief that attention to these issues will help address the gender disparity.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 428 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Campbell, P. K., Bernal-Turnes, P., Drewry, J. M., & Edgerton, B. T. (2017). Most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks: Implications for the science–practice divide, scholarly impact, and the future of the field. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10, 507–557.Google Scholar
Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT. Gender, Work, and Organizations, 10, 137–153.Google Scholar
Boring, A. (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 27–41.Google Scholar
Gardner, D. M., Ryan, A. M., & Snoeyink, M. (2018). How are we doing? An examination of gender representation in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (3), 369–388.Google Scholar
Green, R. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: The relative importance of teaching, scholarship, and service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44 (2), 117–127.Google Scholar
Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Research on Higher Education, 58, 672–694.Google Scholar
Huffman, A. H., Howes, S. S., & Olson, K. J. (2017). “This is our house!” Why are I-O psychologists losing at the gender disparity game? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10, 584–588.Google Scholar
Lackritz, J. R. (2004). Exploring burnout among university faculty: Incidence, performance, and demographic issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 713–729.Google Scholar
Lubienski, S. T., Miller, E. K., & Saclarides, E. S. (2018). Sex differences in doctoral student publication rates. Educational Researcher, 47 (1), 76–81.Google Scholar
Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P. A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 141 (1), 85–104.Google Scholar
Mengel, F., Sauermann, J., & Zolitz, U. (2018). Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association, 16, 1–32.Google Scholar
Minefee, I. A., Rabelo, V. C., Stewart, O. J. C., & Young, N. C. J. (2018). Repairing leaks in the pipeline: A social closure perspective on underrepresented racial/ethnic minority recruitment and retention in business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 17, 79–95.Google Scholar
Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97, 22–26.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. M. W. (2017). It's a dangerous business, being a female professor. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/It-s-a-Dangerous-Business/240336/Google Scholar
Mitchell, K., & Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51 (3), 648–652. doi:10.1017/S104909651800001XGoogle Scholar
Storage, D., Horne, Z., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S.-J. (2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PLoS ONE, 11 (3), e0150194.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. J., Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2017). How “doing gender” leads to gender imbalances in the higher ranks of colleges of business (and how to “undo gender”). Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16, 439–453.Google Scholar
Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Students evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42.Google Scholar
Williams, J. C., & Multhaup, M. (2018). For women and minorities to get ahead, managers must assign work fairly. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/03/for-women-and-minorities-to-get-ahead-managers-must-assign-work-fairly</BI>>Google Scholar