|
Women, Work and the Academy > Executive Summaries > Donna Ginther
Economic Explanations for the Gender Gap in Science
Donna Ginther, Department of Economics, University of Kansas
Women are increasingly represented at the Ph.D. level in academic
science and across all scientific fields. Although women have increased
numerically and achieved more prestigious positions in academic science,
the question remains as to whether they have achieved the rewards of
salary and promotion equal to those of men. Several studies have found
that women in science earn less, and are less likely to be tenured than
men (CAWMSET 2000, NSF 2000, AAAS 2001). Although the evidence
presented is striking, the reports do little to explain what factors
contribute to the observed gender differences. My research examines
gender differences in the salaries and promotion of academics in science
through the lens of economic theory.
Even though women earn less than men in science, one cannot conclude
from the above studies that gender discrimination is the underlying
cause of the gender gap. Economic theory suggests that salary
differences arise from differences in preferences and productivity.
Factors such as time in rank, employer characteristics, or productivity
may also explain a substantial portion of the gender gap. Simply
comparing salaries or promotion of male and female academic scientists
without taking into consideration these factors could overstate the
gender salary or promotion gaps. In addition, empirical evidence
supporting discrimination must be qualified by assuming that, in the
absence of discrimination, men and women would be paid or promoted the
same on average. Careful examination of data is needed in order to
conclude that discrimination is evident.
My research uses data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) and
the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) to examine the distribution of
women across scientific fields and gender differences in salary and
promotion. The SED is a census of doctorates awarded in the United
States each year. The SDR collects detailed information on doctorate
recipients including demographic characteristics, educational
background, employer characteristics, academic rank, government support,
primary work activity, productivity, and salary. Academics in the life
sciences, physical sciences, and engineering are included in the
analysis. Although the SDR has comprehensive measures of factors that
influence academic salaries and promotion, the data lack information on
some quantitative measures, such as laboratory space, and extensive
measures of publications.
My research finds significant gender differences in salary and
promotion outcomes for academics in the sciences (Ginther 2001, 2004).
Between 1973 and 2001 the average gender salary difference remained at
roughly five percent for tenure-track assistant and associate
professors, with more than half of that difference attributable to
observable characteristics. Gender salary differences for full
professors are persistently high, averaging 15 percent throughout the
sample time frame, with one-third of the salary difference remaining
unexplained by observable characteristics. However, gender differences
in promotion to tenure are negligible - women in science are one percent
less likely to be promoted than men within 10 years of achieving the
doctorate.
Economic theory suggests several potential explanations for observed
gender differences in career attainment and my research examines each in
turn. However, when presence of children, productivity differences, and
monopsony (where the university is the single purchaser of academic
talent) are evaluated they are found to be inconsistent with the
evidence presented in this research. The results are more consistent
with the cumulative advantage and gender schema models of gender
discrimination. In the cumulative advantage model, men's careers are
more likely to be enhanced than women's and these advantages and
disadvantages accumulate over time leading to the salary gap. In the
gender schema model, women's accomplishments are downplayed relative to
men's leading to lower salary increments.
So why is it that the average female academic scientist continues to
fare worse than her male colleagues? Research by Ginther and Hayes
(2003) shows that this is not the case for women in the humanities. At
all ranks, the gender salary gap in the humanities is not significantly
different from zero. It could be that women in science are required to
negotiate for resources and salary more than faculty in the humanities.
Recent research suggests that women are less likely to initiate
negotiation than men, and when they do negotiate for salaries, they make
lower salary demands (Babcock and Laschever 2003). In addition, women
in science may be less likely to embrace the possibility of gender
discrimination in career outcomes. Etzkowitz et. al. (1994) found in
interviews of female faculty that, "Fear of stigmatization led some
women. . . to deny the existence of gender related obstacles." This
contrasts sharply with the humanities, where feminism is a mainstream
field of intellectual inquiry, and the concept of equal pay for equal
work is sacrosanct.
Policy Implications and Future Research
As a result of these findings, colleges and universities should
undertake an evaluation of the status of women in science similar to
recent reviews by MIT and other elite institutions (Zernike 2001).
Raising awareness among faculty and administrators is the first step
towards addressing gender disparities. In addition, the National
Science Foundation sponsors ADVANCE grants designed to help women
scientists further their careers, to support women's leadership
initiatives, and to allow for institutional transformation to make
academia more hospitable for women scientists. Despite having moved
from scarcity to visibility in science careers, women's salaries at the
full professor rank do not reflect the same kind of progress.
This research is part of a larger project that will investigate the
economic explanations for gender differences in salary, promotion, and
attrition for academics in science, social science, and engineering
using data from the 1973 -2001 waves of the SDR. The future studies
will be based on SDR data that is merged with publication and citation
information. These studies will explore whether the gender salary gap
in science has converged since the mid-1990s; factors accounting for the
gender promotion gap in the social sciences; and the timing and reasons
for women leaving the scientific pipeline. These studies will examine
economic explanations of the gender gap such as differences in
preferences and productivity, market forces including monopsony and the
excess supply of doctoral scientists, and discrimination.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2001. AAAS
Salary and Job Survey. Available on-line at
http://recruit.sciencemag.org/feature/salsurvey/salsurvey.htm.
Babcock, Linda, and Sara Laschever. 2003. Women Don't Ask.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities
in Science, Engineering, and Technology (CAWMSET). 2000. "Land of
Plenty."
Etzkowitz, Henry, Carol Kemelgor, Michael Neuschatz, Brian Uzzi, and
Joseph Alonzo, 1994. "The Paradox of Critical Mass for Women in
Science." Science 266: October 7, 1994. 51-54.
Ginther, Donna K. 2001. "Does Science Discriminate Against Women?
Evidence from Academia: 1973-1997." Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Working Paper 2001-02.
Ginther, Donna K. 2004. "Why Women Earn Less: Economic Explanations
for the Gender Salary Gap in Science" AWIS Magazine (Winter 2004)
33:1, 6-10.
Ginther, Donna K. and Kathy J. Hayes. 2003. "Gender Differences in
Salary and Promotion for Faculty in the Humanities, 1977-1995."
Journal of Human Resources.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 2000. Women, Minorities, and
Persons with Disabilities in Sciences and Engineering: 2000. NSF
00-327. Arlington, VA.
Zernike, Kate. 2001. "9 Universities will Address Sex Inequities."
The New York Times 31 January 2001. A11.
Back to top
|
