Predicting Rank Attainment in Political Science: What Else Besides Publications Affects Promotion?

Abstract

We report the results of hypotheses tests about the effects of several measures of research, teaching, and service on the likelihood of achieving the ranks of associate and full professor. In conducting these tests, we control for institutional and individual background characteristics. We focus our tests on the link between productivity and academic rank and explore whether this relationship reveals a gender dimension. The analyses are based on an APSA-sponsored survey of all faculty members in departments of political science (government, public affairs, and international relations) in the United States.

Promotion decisions are among the most important choices that academic departments make. Generally, promotion from assistant to associate professor brings the decisive reward of tenure—an almost certain guarantee of continuing employment. Wise promotion decisions enhance a department's prestige, while failure to promote a capable scholar means losing talent to another university or possibly an end to a promising academic career (Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993, 703). Higher rank yields better salaries and more influence within the department.

An extensive literature exists on the subject of academic promotion. This literature is based on studies of several different disciplines, from medicine and economics to the social sciences and humanities. Our own analyses of the factors affecting promotion, presented in the second part of this article, are based solely on the discipline of political science. For these analyses, we rely on a 2009 APSA-sponsored survey of all faculty employed in political science departments (including departments of government and public affairs) throughout the United States. (Appendix A provides a description of the survey methodology.) We find that although age (or years of experience) is the best predictor of rank, productivity in terms of publications is a consistently reliable predictor of promotion, except when comparing female assistant to female associate professors. We provide evidence that women are less likely than men to move from assistant professor to associate professor rank. When a woman does achieve associate professor rank, she is as likely as her male colleagues to move on to the rank of full professor.

LITERATURE REVIEW

According to nearly 40-year-old interviews of chairpersons and heads of departments, the criteria used to judge individuals at promotion time are “teaching, research, and public service to the university” (Katz 1973, 470). Such criteria are now enshrined in faculty handbooks and operations manuals for all colleges and universities. Katz's survey also revealed that “research ability, publication record, and national reputation” were “the most important factors influencing salary and promotion decisions” (470). Doering (1972), however, explored the idea that seniority, years of experience, or simply age is the best predictor of promotion—as one generally cannot advance through the ranks without spending a certain amount of time in each rank (see also Lewis 1967).

Generally findings confirm “that most institutions of higher education ‘continue to promote or retain faculty members largely on the basis of publications’” (Woodring 1964, 45 as quoted in Doering 1972, 11). The number of books authored and the number of journal articles published have positive effects on academic career advancement (Ginther and Hayes 1999, 400; Ginther and Kahn 2004, 201; Lewis 1998; Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993, 718; Over 1993, 318; Tien 2007). Publications have become even more important for promotion than they were in the past given the “increased competition for permanent academic positions” (Ginther and Hayes 2003, 62).

Publications, however, are only one part of faculty productivity. The receipt of grants is also linked to promotion (Fang et al. 2000, 1090; Lee 2002, 703). Whether one's primary work activity is teaching or research influences the duration and probability of promotion (Ginther and Hayes 1999 and 2003; Ginther and Kahn 2004). Committee service is also an important variable in explaining rank (Katz 1973, 476; Lee 2002, 703).

The type of institution where the faculty member is employed may also affect promotion (Lee 2002, 704). Indeed, Ornstein, Stewart, and Drakich (2007, 19) find that “institutional differences in [median time to promotion] are greater than disciplinary differences and much greater than the effect of gender.”¹ Rothgeb and Burger (2009) compare US political science departments and find differences between BA and PhD departments in the general standards and procedures used when evaluating tenure. Other work indicates that the likelihood of promotion varies between public and private institutions (Fang et al. 2000, 1087; Ginther and Hayes 1999, 400; Ginther and Hayes 2003, 50; Perna 2005, 284; Tien 2007). Long, Allison, and McGinnis (1993) find that the more prestigious the department of current employment, the lower the odds of promotion, although the effects may be different for women and men (719; see also Ginther and Kahn 2004, 202; Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993, 797; McDowell and Smith 1992, 78; Morrison, Rudd, and Nerad 2011, 545). Ginther and Kahn (2004, 201) also report that the prestige or tier (rank) of the PhD-granting institution can influence the probability of promotion, as may time-to-degree and the field or area of study (see also Lee 2002, 307; Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993, 713–714, 719; Morrison et al. 2011, 545; Over 1993, 318).

In addition to efforts to link productivity, other career information, and institutional characteristics to academic rank, a body of research has focused on the question of whether faculty promotion reveals a gender dimension. Studies have also attempted to determine whether minorities face greater hurdles than their nonminority counterparts. Fueling these debates is evidence of larger numbers of women and racially diverse undergraduate and graduate student populations, yet the proportion of women and minorities among faculty in higher education has not caught up with these trends at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

As of 2009, 59% of the total postbaccalaureate fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions was female.² We compare this to faculty at the same point in time: In fall 2009, 47% of faculty were female.³ Among the total 2009 fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, 33% were of a nonwhite race or ethnicity.⁴ For the same year, 18% of college and university faculty were African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native (based on a faculty count that excludes persons whose race/ethnicity was unknown).⁵

Looking specifically at political science (and government), 45% of bachelor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions in 2008–09 were given to women, and 38.5% of doctoral degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions in 2008–09 were given to women.⁶ According to the National Science Foundation “Survey of Earned Doctorates,” 40% of doctoral degrees earned in political science in 2009 went to women.⁷ According to APSA data, the percentage of women among all political science faculty members in the United States in 2009 was 28%. The percentage of female political scientists by academic rank for 2009 was 39% for assistant professors, 30% for associate professors and 19% for full professors. So it appears that at the entry level, women are receiving academic appointments at the same rate as men, but they are not moving up the academic ranks at the same rate as male faculty.⁸

In the 1970s and 1980s, an argument was made that not enough PhDs had yet been granted to women, thus the available pool of qualified female candidates was small, and the number of female tenured faculty simply reflected the smaller available pool. Such an argument is now less convincing given that the proportion of political science doctorate degrees awarded to women has increased from 23% during 1981–85, to 27% between 1986 and 1990, to 30% between 1991 and 1995, to 35% between 1996 and 2000, and to 39% between 2001 and 2005.⁹ Enough time has passed for more women to have matriculated to full professor. Therefore, the numbers do lead to questions about what is happening to the women.

Numerous studies show that female academics are less likely to be promoted (or take longer to be promoted) than male academics (Allen and Castleman 2001; Fang et al. 2000; Farber 1977, 204; Ginther and Hayes 1999, 400; Ginther and Hayes 2003, 50; Ginther and Kahn 2004, 200; Johnson and Stafford 1974, 892; Kahn 1993, 1995; Katz 1973, 471; Krefting 2003; Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993; Long and Fox 1995; McDowell, Singell, and Ziliak 1999a, 1999b; McDowell and Smith 1992, 78; Morrison, Rudd, and Nerad 2011; National Science Foundation 2004; Ornstein, Stewart, and Drakich 2007, 15; Perna 2001, 2005; Roos and Gatta 2009; Rudd et al. 2008; Sax et al. 2002; Stewart, Ornstein, and Drakich 2009; Tien 2007, 113; Toutkoushian 1999; Ward 2001).¹⁰ These findings are well-established, although Jackson and O'Callaghan (2009, 472) argue against the majority in saying that in one-third of the studies that found gender disparities in position attainment and promotion, the differences could be attributed to differences other than gender (i.e., “cohort affect” noted by Morgan 1998). Fewer studies have linked race or ethnicity to a lower probability of promotion, although some studies have done so (Fang et al. 2000, 1090; Ginther and Hayes 2003, 50; Ginther and Kahn 2004, 206; Long and Fox 1995; Toutkoushian 1999). Data from the 1990s reveal that both women and minorities were less likely to be employed in prestigious research universities (Long and Fox 1995, 51).

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

According to normative theory, “universalism” should characterize science. Universalism requires that the scientific communities' assessment of any contribution to scientific knowledge be based on “pre-established impersonal criteria” (Merton [1942] 1973, 270 as described in Long and Fox 1995). “Particularism, in contrast, involves the use of functionally irrelevant characteristics, such as sex and race, as a basis for making claims and gaining rewards in science” (Long and Fox 1995, 46). The question is whether the underrepresentation of women and minorities in the higher academic ranks of US college and university faculty (as described in the above literature review) is the result of universalistic or particularistic criteria.

A variety of theoretical perspectives have attempted to account for different levels of career attainment for women as compared with men. Social capital theories argue that the resources needed to obtain tenure and promotion, such as “information and knowledge about institutional norms, expectations, and opportunities; access to and influence on key decision makers; certification and endorsement of an individual's qualifications; and emotional support and recognition” are less available to women than to men because women lack access to the collegial and social networks that convey critical job-related knowledge (Lin 2001 as quoted in Perna 2005, 280. See also Milem et al. 2001; O'Leary and Mitchell 1990; Tierney and Bensimon 1996; Yoder 1985). Networks are important at tenure time because they can result in more adulatory outside reference letters.

Other theories explain differential career progress by focusing on life cycle differences in labor force participation between men and women. A woman who is out of the labor force because of family responsibilities is not acquiring needed human capital (Becker 1993; Farber 1977; Johnson and Stafford 1974; Mincer and Polachek 1974; Zuckerman 1987). Noting additionally that women work fewer hours per year than men when they do work, the effect is that women accumulate fewer years of work experience (Johnson and Stafford 1974, 892). Family responsibilities may cause women to pursue different types of jobs (for example, parttime work) or less demanding work (Becker 1985), and the stress of childcare and household responsibilities may be greater for women than for men (Dey 1994). Women may also be less mobile than men (Rosenfeld and Jones 1987).¹¹

Morrison, Rudd, and Nerad (2011, 526) observe that because of the need to earn tenure within a set time, “academic careers may be exceptionally demanding during the family formation phase of life” (Acker and Armenti, 2004; Jacobs 2004; Jacobs and Winslow 2004a, 2004b; Over 1993, 318). Researchers have noted that for men, having children has a positive effect on promotion, although for women, children have a negative effect on promotion (Ginther and Hayes 2003, 63–66; Ginther and Kahn 2004; Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993; Mason and Goulden 2002, 2004; Perna 2005; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2004). Other studies, however, do not find an independent effect of parenting on the likelihood of achieving tenure (Kulis and Sicotte 2002; Morrison, Rudd, and Nerad 2011; Rudd et al. 2008). Being married (with or without children) may affect the likelihood of being promoted (Long 2001; Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993; Perna 2005, 285; Ward 2001, 286), although the effect is likely to be different for men and women (Ginther and Hayes 1999; Kulis and Sicotte 2002; Morrison, Rudd, and Nerad 2011; Wolfinger, Mason, and Goulden 2008). The repercussions of the effects of marriage and children are revealed in 2004 statistics from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty that show that female faculty members are less likely to be married and much less likely to be both married and have children than their male counterparts.¹²

Critics of social/human capital and life cycle theories argue that these do not adequately explain the lower returns on investment for women and minorities and the segregation of women into lower status occupations (England et al. 1988). Dual or split labor market theories advanced by Feagin and Feagin (1986) argue that institutional barriers that were constructed historically to exclude women and minorities from core or primary sector employment have persisted even after social changes have rendered these barriers illegal (Lee 2002, 697). Conflict theories assume that “dominant groups use their monopoly over resources to maintain their privileges” (Reskin 2003, 2).

More subtle cognitive processes may also operate to favor in-groups and disfavor out-groups (Tajfel and Turner 1986). Rather than experiencing overt discrimination in the workplace, out-groups encounter “consensual status hierarchies” that operate structurally to produce inequality (DiTomaso et al. 2007, 176). Such processes, which perpetuate inequalities, persist not because of conscious efforts, but because individual actions “are complicit with previously established norms” (Bird and Rhoton 2011, 352, see also Rowe 1990). Social psychologists assert that common stereotypes about gender differences in a larger society (a hierarchy of gender status beliefs) are reproduced within organizations such as universities—and important consequences follow, such as differential access to resources and decisions about competence (Roos and Gatta 2009, 179; for a review see Heilman 2001). Because academic judgments of the quality of a colleague's work are inherently subjective, the tendency of evaluators is to fall back on existing schema, stereotypes, and personal biases (Eveline 2004). Sexism in peer review may be a more overt manifestation of such processes (Wenneras and Wold 1997). Other examples of subtle or unconscious discrimination include encouragement of early promotion for men but not for women, more impressive language used to describe the records of men than for women, and promotion to senior professor largely on the basis of departmental administrative needs for men but not for women (Roos and Gatta 2009, 188).

THE DATA, ANALYSES, AND FINDINGS

Given that figures from the APSA, the National Science Foundation, and the US Department of Education all reveal the underrepresentation of women in higher academic ranks of political science, the Committee on the Status of Women within the APSA felt a responsibility to check whether the norms of universalism or particularism were operating in the process of rank attainment within our discipline. The committee approached the APSA Council, and the council allocated funds for a survey of all faculty members in departments of political science (and departments of government, public affairs, and international relations) in the United States. We base our analyses on the responses to this survey.

The dependent variable is academic rank. Academic rank has three categories: assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor. We are excluding from these analyses faculty with another rank (e.g., lecturer, instructor) and we selected only those respondents who were in a tenure-track position, which represents the lion's share of respondents (92%).¹³ Across the entire set of 1,399 respondents to the 2009 APSA survey of political science faculty, 28.3% were assistant professors, 25.5% were associate professors, and 37.2% were full professors.¹⁴ For more information on the representativeness of respondents in relation to the target population, see appendix A.

Bivariate Analyses

The hypotheses that we tested emerge from the literature review above. For example, we expect that a larger number of publications will be associated with a greater likelihood of being at a higher rank. We consider several different measures of research, teaching, and service. We also look at a variety of characteristics of one's current job—as well as background characteristics, such as where one received his or her PhD. Tables 1A and 1B show the predictor variables that we explored.

Table 1A Descriptive Statistics for Differences in Means across Ranks (among men only and among women only)

Asterisks in the assistant professor column indicate a significant difference between mean for the assistant professors compared with the associate professors (within gender). Asterisks in the full professor column indicate a significant difference between mean for the full professors compared with the associate professors (within gender).

Table 1B Percentage Differences across Ranks (among men and women separately)

The first row of table 1A shows the mean for total publications for the different ranks with men and women listed separately. The asterisks in table 1A reveal when the differences in means across ranks are statistically significant. Our measure of total productivity counts the number of articles, monographs, chapters, and edited books published to date in one's career. (Appendix B provides coding information for all variables.) The average on the measure of total productivity for assistant professors is 4.9, for associates it is 11.4, and for full professors it is 28.5. In terms of the individual components of our total productivity scale, assistant professors had published an average of 3.4 articles, associates had published 6.9 articles, and full professors had published 16.2 articles. Assistants had published on average of 0.3 monographs, associates had published 0.73, and full professors had published 2.3.

Women have a lower average number of article publications at every rank. Women also publish fewer monographs and book chapters than men at the associate and full professor levels. At the assistant professor rank, however, women publish more monographs and an equal number of book chapters compared with men.¹⁵ For a discussion of reasons behind differential publication rates, see Hesli and Lee (2011).

In terms of other research-related activities, among both men and women, those at higher ranks have more frequently reviewed book and article manuscripts, served on editorial boards, and received external grant awards (table 1A). In contrast, those at higher ranks attend conferences less frequently than those at lower ranks. Teaching loads are similar across ranks: assistants on average teach 4.5 undergraduate courses per year, associates teach 4.4, and full professors teach 4.0 undergraduate courses per year. Table 1A also reveals that one's overall resources tend to increase significantly as one moves up the academic ranks. Notice also that the mean age ranges from 37 to 58 years across the academic ranks.

In table 1B we report percentage differences across ranks for the categorical variables used in our analyses. Note, we do not see significant differences across ranks in the proportion whose work is primarily coauthored. Another interesting finding that corresponds with figures reported by the US Department of Education is that women are less likely to be married than men; this is most dramatically apparent at the level of full professor. Several other interesting contrasts are in tables 1A and 1B, but none of these comparisons includes controls for other relevant factors. Thus, we turn to our multivariate analyses.

Multivariate Analyses

For multivariate analyses, we use logistic regression models to examine the likelihood of being an associate professor as compared with an assistant professor and then to examine the likelihood of being a full professor as compared with an associate professor—based on demographic, institutional, and professional attributes.¹⁶ Because these dependent variables are dichotomous, binary logit regression is used. These models estimate the log-odds of the higher rank occurring relative to the lower rank for each of the independent variables after controlling for the other variables in the model.¹⁷

We tested the models with a reduced sample where we exclude from the analyses respondents who missed an answer to one or more questions (variables) in the model. We also tested the same models using imputed data and holding the number of cases in the analysis constant at 706 for the comparison between assistant and associate professors and at 823 for the comparison between associate and full professors. The purpose of using imputed estimates of missing responses is to increase the number of observations taken into consideration in the analysis. For example, out of 1,399 survey respondents, 141 did not identify the institution from which they received their PhD. A more significant missing value problem arises with the question: “In what year did you obtain your PhD degree?” Two-hundred and seventy-three people either did not answer or made a mistake when typing in a year. We did not feel comfortable simply dropping these 273 people (19.5% of all respondents) from all of our analyses. Therefore, we decided to use the multiple imputation Amelia II program to impute estimates of the missing responses on each of the independent variables used in the analysis (Honaker, King, and Blackwell 2011).¹⁸ The results using multiple imputation are reported in the tables presented here.¹⁹

We also note that we omitted some variables from the models that we originally considered because repeated preliminary testing revealed that these variables were not statistically significant in the academic rank models (given the other controls in the model). Omitted variables include whether the undergraduate major was political science; the type of undergraduate school (four-year private liberal arts college, private research university, flagship state university, or other state university); citizenship status; number of independent, honors, and senior projects supervised; frequency of committee membership; and whether one's work is generally sole-authored or co-authored. We excluded a few other variables because they were highly correlated with or represented a concept already included in the model with a different indicator. For example, we did not include the number of years in one's current position; rather we included responses to a question of whether one had been in his or her current position for more than seven years. We did not include frequency of conference attendance nor the number of grants awarded as these are highly correlated with the number of publications. We did not include number of graduate courses taught, as this is directly tied to whether one works in a PhD-granting, MA-granting, or bachelor-degree-only granting department. Each of the variables listed in this paragraph is included in tables 1A and 1B; readers can see what differences do exist (bivariately) across ranks on these measures.

We attempted to include all relevant variables as identified in the literature in our models. We do this so that when we test hypothesized relationships, such as that between gender and rank, we control for important predictors (such as age and the number of publications). This method of assessing the existence of particularistic criteria in the determination of academic rank is referred to as “sophisticated residualism” (Cole 1979, 29, as quoted in Long and Fox 1995, 54). If sex or race differences remain significant after controlling for relevant variables, we have evidence of particularism. Cotter et al. (2001) use a similar approach in evaluating the “glass ceiling effect,” which exists when gender or racial difference cannot be explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee.

In interpreting the multivariate analysis, we start with table 2. This table looks only at people in the rank of either assistant or associate professor, and models the likelihood of being an associate professor over an assistant professor.²⁰ Because promotion to associate professor occurs usually after five to seven years at the assistant professor rank, we include age as a control variable in all of the models: the older one is, the more likely he or she will be at a higher rank.²¹ Related variables are entered into the logistic regression analysis in blocks to check the contributions of specific categories of predictors.

Table 2 Predicting Academic Rank: Factors Affecting the Likelihood of Being an Associate Professor in Contrast with an Assistant Professor (binary logistic models via multiple imputation)

Note.

*** p < 0.01,

** p < 0.05,

* p < 0.1

Model 2A includes demographic and family status variables, plus characteristics of one's graduate training. Note that women have a significantly lower likelihood of being an associate professor (compared with an assistant professor) than do men. Having an employed partner increases the likelihood of being an associate professor. Graduates from higher ranked PhD programs are more likely to be at the associate level, while more time spent in graduate school works against movement to a higher rank.²² Each additional year spent earning the doctoral degree reduces the likelihood of being an associate professor by 14%.

We look next at model 2B in table 2. We still predict the likelihood of being an associate professor compared with an assistant, but we now have included characteristics of the job as well as demographic characteristics and information about one's graduate school experience. We continue to consider men and women in the same model. Later we split the sample and separately look at men and women. In this model, the factors that are found to be unrelated to difference in rank are as interesting as those factors that are, so we report both. Among the factors that describe the job, considering male and female professors together, those factors that do not affect the likelihood of being an associate professor are teaching load,²³ level of resources, whether one has a joint appointment, whether one works in a private versus a public institution, whether one works in a PhD, MA, or bachelors degree-granting department, or whether one works in a highly ranked department.²⁴ The factors that are related to an increased likelihood of being an associate professor over an assistant professor are being more involved in student advising, chairing more committees, and being released from teaching duties. These findings about advising and committee service seem sensible as many departments attempt to protect assistant professors from too much advising and committee service so that they will have more time for their research. Indeed, associate professors advise more and chair more committees than do assistant professors.

For the last model in table 2 (model 2C), we add factors that we define as professional characteristics. We see that among men and women together, and with the other controls in the model, subfield specialization is unrelated to the likelihood of being at the associate professor rank; perceptions of departmental influence, frequency of reviewing books or articles, and serving on editorial boards are also not significant. What is related to associate versus assistant professor rank is staying in the same position for at least seven years and research productivity. We included the question of length of time in one's current position to control for the expectation of promotion from the rank of assistant to the rank of associate professor after a certain amount of time passes. We might think of the total number of publications also as an important control variable, as we expect people to be promoted based on their publications. Those at the higher rank have indeed published more articles, chapters, and books.²⁵ Note that with the controls for time in position and number of publications in the model 2C, we still see significant differences between men and women in rank. The odds ratio associated with the coefficient for women in model 2C reveals that the likelihood of a woman being at the associate professor rank is 51% less than it is for a man. Stated differently: the chance of a female faculty member being at the associate professor rank is only 49% of the chance that a male faculty member is at associate rank.

Table 3 looks only at people in the rank of either associate or full professor and models the likelihood of being a full professor in contrast to an associate professor. A key finding here is that being a woman does not affect the likelihood of being at one rank rather than another. Besides the control for age, the only variable from the first set (model 3A) that influences the likelihood of being a full professor is the length of time that it took the candidate to complete his or her doctoral degree. Again, spending too much time in graduate school appears to hinder later promotion through the ranks.²⁶

Table 3 Predicting Academic Rank: Associate Professors Compared with Full Professors (binary logistic models via multiple imputation)

Note.

*** p < 0.01,

** p < 0.05,

* p < 0.1

We look at model 3B to evaluate whether characteristics of the job are significant predictors of rank when professional characteristics are not yet considered. We see that the likelihood of being at the rank of full professor is higher with more frequent committee service, less likely when working in an MA program, more likely in more highly ranked departments, and more likely with more resources and release from teaching.²⁷ Each of these significant factors from the second set of variables in model 3B, however, loses their significance when the professional variables are added to the equation (model 3C).

According to model 3C (table 3), which includes all possible controls, the likelihood of being a full professor (over an associate professor) is lower in a PhD-granting program (rather than a MA program or a bachelor's program [the excluded category]). In addition, the greater one's perceived influence in department decision making, the greater the likelihood that one is a full professor. As expected, more publications lead to a greater likelihood of being a full professor. More frequent service on editorial boards also correlates with a greater likelihood of being a full professor.²⁸ We note the significance of the coefficients associated with age and having been in the same position for at least seven years; we think of these more as control variables as we expect that a certain amount of time must be spent at the associate-professor rank before one can advance to the full-professor rank.

Hypotheses Tests with a Split Sample: Men and Women Examined Separately

Given the importance of gender in table 2, we divide the sample and test the models separately on tenure track women only and on tenure track men only. These tests are found in tables 4 and 5. Using this information, we explore whether the relationships between the predictors of promotion to associate professor or to full professor vary between men and women. Table 4 presents tests of a logit model of the probability of being in the associate professor category over the assistant professor category using a split sample. Let us compare model 4A (for men) with model 4B (for women). These two models include all predictor variables except the professional variables. We remind readers that these models include a control for age, which is the best predictor of academic rank. We find that the following variables are not predictive of rank for either men or women: being married or partnered, number of children, whether one's partner is employed, and the rank of the program where one received his or her doctoral degree.²⁹ In other words, when we consider men and women separately, the likelihood of being tenured does not improve for either men or women based on whether one was trained by a top-ranked department.

Table 4 Predicting Academic Rank: Associate Professor Compared with Assistant Professor (spilt sample)

Note.

*** p < 0.01,

** p < 0.05,

* p < 0.1

Table 5 Predicting Academic Rank: Associate Professors Compared with Full Professors (Split sample)

Note.

*** p < 0.01,

** p < 0.05,

* p < 0.1

With regard to characteristics of the job, the following variables do not differentiate between the likelihood of being an assistant or an associate professor: teaching load, having a joint appointment, working at a private school, being in a PhD or an MA program, and amount of resources.³⁰ Noteworthy is that higher levels of advising and more frequent committee service (as chair) are significantly associated with being in the associate professor category for both men and women. Again, we observe that many departments make a concerted effort to reduce the amount of advising and committee service among assistant professors, so we are not arguing that more of either one will help one to become an associate professor. What we are saying is that the job is different with regard to advising and committee service when one is no longer an assistant professor.³¹ Another finding that holds for both men and women concerns teaching release: the more courses from which one has been released, the more likely one is to be in the associate professor category.

Some variables' effects are different for female faculty as compared to male faculty.³² For example, minority men are less likely than nonminority men to be in the associate professor rank compared with assistant professor. Among female faculty, taking more time to complete the PhD reduces the likelihood of being an associate professor over an assistant professor. Another difference between men and women that we see in this set is that among women only, a lower ranking of one's current department is associated with a greater likelihood of being an associate professor (rather than an assistant).

To finish our analysis of the factors related to the likelihood of being an associate professor over an assistant professor, we look at models 4C (for men) and 4D (for women) in table 4. These models include the professional characteristics of the faculty members. The difference that we observe between men and women is that perceptions of departmental influence and frequency of reviewing a book are related to the associate professor rank for women, but not for men.³³ This means that with the controls in models 4C and 4D, only female associate professors have reviewed more books and report more influence over department decision-making than female assistant professors.

Rather shockingly, the total number of publications is not related to rank (assistant to associate) for women, although the number of publications is significantly related to the rank of men. This is the only place where we find academic rank to be unrelated to publication productivity.³⁴ We need to highlight this substantively significant and uncomfortable finding . The lack of significance associated with the coefficient for total publications in the model for women (model 4D) means that no discernible relationship exists among women between number of publications and the likelihood of being in the rank of associate professor (over the rank of assistant professor)—which is troubling because the number of publications should be a predictor of rank. Publications, along with teaching and service, are supposed to be the criteria used to evaluate candidates at promotion time.³⁵ We remind readers that differences in the likelihood ratios that are significant for women and men suggest that the predictors of rank are different for men than for women. We return to this finding later in our discussion.

Now, we turn to differences between the rank of associate and full professor based on separate analyses for men and women (table 5). According to model 5B, none of the demographic or graduate program variables are useful for differentiating between associate and full-professor rank among women (except, of course, age). Among men (model 5A), however, minorities are less well represented at the full-professor rank, and taking longer to complete the doctoral degree negatively affects the likelihood of being in the full-professor rank. In addition, among women, none of the characteristics of one's current job (the second set of variables) are different for associate as compared with full professors. Among men, however, full professors are more likely to chair more committees, and less likely to be employed in a PhD or MA department. Among men only, those with more resources and course releases are more likely to be full professors than associate professors.

Turning to the professional variables (models 5C and 5D), subfield is again unrelated to being in a higher rank for both men and women. A larger number of total publications is related to full-professor rank for both men and women. Interestingly, the size of the effect of the number of publications on promotion to full professor is larger for women than for men. Among men only, more frequent service on editorial boards is related to the higher rank. To summarize, among women, it appears that the only factor that differentiates between associate and full professors is total publications (plus our controls for age and time in position).³⁶ Thus, standard predictors of full-professor rank, such as the type of institution where one is employed, appear to work better to explain promotion for men than for women. Here, readers should note that many differences across ranks are apparent in a bivariate sense (see tables 1A and 1B). Without controls for such important predictors as age and number of years in one's current position, we do know that both female and male full professors have reviewed more books and have served on more editorial boards than have female and male associate professors respectively (table 1A).

DISCUSSION

The analyses presented here raise some serious issues. One concern is the lower likelihood of women as compared to men of being in the associate as compared to the assistant professor rank. This means a significant advantage for men in the probability of becoming an associate professor, which usually includes tenure. Despite holding constant a variety of relevant factors such as age and number of publications, this difference between men and women in rank attainment remains significant. Stated another way, despite detailed controls for personal attributes, institutional characteristics, and professional qualifications, women are underrepresented among the tenured members of the political science profession. The evidence of the lower likelihood of women being at the associate professor rank presented here, as well as the APSA and NSF figures for numbers of women within different academic ranks of political science, provide strong evidence that women are indeed falling out of the profession around tenure time. This finding may actually represent deterioration within our profession. Data gathered around the end of the 20th century indicated that women were gaining tenure at rates relatively similar to men (Hesli and Burrell 1995; McBride Stetson et al. 1990; Van Assendelft, Gunther-Canada, and Dolan 2001).

In contrast to our finding that female faculty have a lower likelihood of being at the rank of associate professor, we find no significant difference between men and women in the likelihood of achieving full-professor status after having become an associate professor. Those women who survive the tenure process are as likely as men (given relevant controls) to move up the academic ladder to full professor. This finding fits comfortably with the notion that “upon entering the rank of associate professor, men and women are more similar than they were when entering the rank of assistant professor” (Long, Allison, and McGinnis 1993, 715).³⁷ This conclusion also indicates that with regard to promotion to full professor, the political science profession has not changed that much during the last decade and a half. Studying the political science profession in the mid-1990s, Hesli and Burrell (1995) reported that when women apply for full professorship they are likely to be promoted at the same rates as men (103). Remarkably, our findings about the lower likelihood of women gaining tenure—but that female survivors of the tenure process fair similarly to men in later promotion decisions—appear similar to those published more than 30 years ago: Farber (1977, 203–4) found that among younger age cohorts, “females received significantly fewer rank promotions”—but that if a woman can continue in academia beyond the younger cohort, through the middle and into the older age cohort, she will receive rank promotions on par with her male counterparts.

Contrary to expectations based on life-cycle theories, being married or partnered and/or the number of children does not generally affect promotion through the ranks.³⁸ The number of children is not significantly different when full professors are compared with associate professors. The number of children is positively correlated with age, so we cannot fully separate the effects of these two variables on promotion to associate professor. We note that other recent research has revealed differential patterns for men and women: “neither parenting nor marriage significantly affects the rate of promotion to tenure for women. However, for men, being in a marriage to a spouse without a professional degree significantly improves the odds of transitioning to tenure” (Morrison, Rudd, and Nerad 2011, 545). Morrison and colleagues (2011, 550) mention the possibility of a selection effect: “only women who feel secure enough in their career choose to have children and therefore advance at a competitive rate.” We need to be careful in interpreting findings about the effects of children on career advancement, as women with heavy family responsibilities may have already left academia. Our panel study (referenced later) will allow us to address directly the possibility of such a phenomenon.

Another critical finding that we note with some consternation is that among women, the probability of being an associate professor over an assistant professor is unrelated (given other controls) to the total number of publications (model 4D). This confirms that the promotion process at this level involves different dynamics for men as compared with women. In all of our other models, we found, as we would expect, that the total number of publications is an important predictor for both men and women of the likelihood of being promoted from assistant to associate professor rank and from associate to full professor. Thus, the mantra of “publish or perish” is substantiated by this research with the notable exception of the movement of women from assistant to associate professor rank. The obvious question is this: why is it that the number of publications for women has no significant effect on their promotion from assistant to associate professor?

Some other findings that tie into the existing literature include the lack of significant differences in rank attainment based on the quality of the graduate program. It is often assumed that receipt of a doctoral degree from a highly ranked department improves one's career prospects. However, we find that PhD-program quality tends not to be related to the academic rank achieved. We do observe a positive correlation between PhD-program rank and current employment in a PhD-granting department. Also, the higher the ranking of the department where one received his or her doctorate, the higher the ranking of the department where one is currently employed. We find that those who take longer to earn their PhD are less likely to attain higher rank.

Rather surprisingly, we see little difference in undergraduate teaching loads across the ranks. We are wary of collinearity associated with this variable. The number of undergraduate courses taught tends to be lower in higher ranked departments. Similarly, the more undergraduate courses taught, the fewer overall resources. More teaching at the undergraduate level is also correlated with fewer total publications and a lower frequency of reviewing articles.

We do see significantly higher levels of advising at the associate and full-professor levels as compared with assistant professors. In addition, although we often think of teaching release as something offered to assistant professors so that they can concentrate on the research, this survey reveals that the higher one's rank attainment, the more likely one is to be released from teaching responsibilities. More resources are associated with higher ranked departments of current employment.

We also note that among men, being a minority decreases the odds of being a full professor over an associate professor. This finding remains significant even with all the controls included in our most comprehensive predictive model. A possible explanation for this finding comes from Tierney and Bensimon (1996) who conclude, “institutional structures, policies, and practices that are intended to be gender- and race-neutral may be creating a working environment that is unsupportive, patronizing and even hostile” (as quoted in Perna 2001, 563). A limitation of this study is that because the number of self-identified members of a minority ethnic or racial group is so small, we cannot reasonably study differences between, for example, African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans. In fact, our aggregation may mask differences among these groups. In addition, as Ginther and Hayes (2003, 68) argue, we cannot conclude that discrimination is the underlying cause of gender or identity differences in promotion unless we are sure that we have controlled for all relevant factors —and we cannot be sure of this. For example, we have not controlled for quality of teaching —if indeed this can be reliably measured. The analyses presented here are also limited to cross-sectional data, which we have used to study a longitudinal promotion process. An implication is that the variables describe characteristics of respondents at one time point. To remedy this, we have collected the data for the first stage of a panel study and will report the results of longitudinal research after the second stage of the panel study is conducted. We also acknowledge the possibility of error in self-reports especially on retrospective measures in surveys. We believe, however, that the benefits of survey research outweigh the problems.

Given the lack of statistical significance for many predictors of higher academic rank among women in our multivariate models, in a future article, we will delve more deeply into the “climate” evaluations provided by the survey respondents. The “micro” climate of each scholar's home department could affect promotion decisions. “Climate” is a factor when women perceive or experience a climate different from the climate experienced by men. One argument “suggests that if affirmative action for women is applied in the admission process to PhD programs and/or at the hiring stage, but not at the tenure stage, then this factor might help explain why fewer women pass the tenure hurdle” (Ginther and Kahn 2004, 212). If white men resent what they perceive as special benefits given to women and minorities in the hiring process, a backlash may occur when these colleagues are called on to vote in tenure decisions.

Additional research is needed on several questions raised by this report. If gender or race does factor into the promotion process, then development programs are still needed to overcome barriers to career advancement within the political science profession. We conclude with our two most perplexing questions: Why are women less likely than men to be associate as compared to assistant professors? Why is it that the number of publications for women appears to have no effect on their likelihood of being an associate professor over an assistant professor? Future research will seek answers to these important questions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The survey on which the analyses reported herein are based was funded by the American Political Science Association. We are indebted to APSA executive director Michael Brintnall for his support, to APSA director of member services and development Sean Twombly for his assistance, and to APSA director of institutional programs Jennifer Segal Diascro for her comments. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, September 2011.