6

It is useful to examine the challenges that female faculty
members face in international institutions as well as inAmerican colleges and universities.

Female Faculty: Challenges
and Choices in the UnitedStates and Beyond
Jennifer N. Samble
Substantial amounts of research and data detail the challenges female faculty
face in the academy. These include unequal pay for similarly situated individuals, disparities between female representation within the professoriate
and student population, and perceptions and accepted modes of behavior
that have the effect of disenfranchising women as they pursue faculty
careers (Barbezat and Hughes, 2006; Morley, 2005; West and Curtis, 2006).
Continuing research is analyzing why these challenges occur and what canbe done to change the trends.
This chapter analyzes a variety of challenges that American female
faculty face, with an emphasis on ascribed gender roles as a limiting
career factor. It then provides a comparative portrait of conditions for female
faculty in select other countries. Finally, it provides advice from female faculty
and administrators who have successfully navigated what often appear tobe the dangerous waters for women in higher education.

Challenges Facing Women Faculty in the
United States
According to many scholars, there is a crisis in higher education (Gappa,
Austin, and Trice, 2007; Hult, Callister, and Sullivan, 2005; Schuster and
Finkelstein, 2006). Although the number of females who serve as faculty
members has risen in the past two decades, projections of a noticeable

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 143, Fall 2008 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/he.313

55

56

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS

increase in tenured female professors have not come to fruition. Thisoutcome has been attributed to a variety of factors. The changing nature of
the professoriate, as evidenced by the increase of part-time, nontenureappointments, and more lucrative opportunities outside academia are twosuch conditions (Barbezat and Hughes, 2006; Bentley and Blackburn, 1993;
West and Curtis, 2006).
There is some evidence that women’s advancement opportunities may
continue to be influenced by some of the biases that have kept their participation numbers below those of men for the past century (Drago and others,
2005; Haag, 2005; Williams, 2006). Gappa, Austin, and Trice (2007) state,“The traditional academic career leading toward tenure continues to be onethat is based on a male model and on men’s normative paths” (p. 75).
Research supports the contention that “women face more obstacles as
faculty in higher education than they do as managers and directors incorporate America” (West and Curtis, 2006, p. 4).
Aguirre (2000) outlines biasing factors that female faculty face. Amongthese are a reward system that fails to take into account the additional familiar
responsibilities of women, social isolation, discredited research, andincreased representation in service activities and committee appointments.
Aguirre (2000) contends that the overrepresentation of women in these last
two areas can lead to “tokenism” (p. 72). Women often encounter theundervaluing of many facets of the work that females are encouraged to do
and face resistance in doing some other things they choose to do, such as
research that is considered feminist or peripheral. Citing research by theAmerican Association of University Professors, Aguirre states that“the salary gap between men and women faculty has not narrowed and infact, has expanded at the assistant professor level” (p. 61).
Drago and others (2005) identify what they term a “bias against caregiving” (p. 22). They suggest that although family leave policies have been
instituted in higher education institutions, faculty rarely use them because
they fear a negative reaction during the tenure process if they take them.
They also find that faculty construct strategies to avoid receiving negative
feedback from their use of family workplace policies. Among these are
returning to work sooner than required after the birth of a child or anotherfamily leave, failing to file an allowable tenure clock extension, and a deliberately guarded silence at the workplace regarding personal issues.
Williams (2006) contends that women are particularly reluctant to takeadvantage of policies that support their careers as professionals and mothersor spouses because women are already disproportionately disadvantaged bygender stereotypes that make their advancement more difficult than that ofmen. She identifies two limiting factors in particular: the often-cited glassceiling and “the maternal wall” (p. 16). Glass ceiling has often been used todescribe the limits to women’s advancement identifiable by the unstatedbarriers that females face in advancing to the pinnacle of the profession.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI: 10.1002/he

FEMALE FACULTY: CHALLENGES AND CHOICES

57

Williams’s explanation for this phenomenon leads her to use the additional
term: maternal wall.
Williams asserts that the conditions associated with motherhood
prevent many women from even approaching the glass ceiling. She identifies
a “competency struggle” (p. 17), in which women are less likely to receive
the benefit of the doubt, credit for being aggressive or creative, and are easily
marginalized as individuals hired because of gender, not in spite of it.
Williams suggested that the existence of these roadblocks makes it unlikelythat women will use workplace leave policies.
She also cited conflicts in the relationship between women. If a female
faculty member uses leave, she explains, another female member of thedepartment may be asked to assume or share the additional responsibilities
that have been created by the leave. This can create animosity or resentment
if the faculty member with an increased load has deliberately postponed
marriage or a family to pursue her career (Williams, 2006).
Williams (2006) suggests that women worry they will be perceived as
the recipients of extra benefits that may strain relationships with colleagues.
Gappa, Austin, and Trice (2007) found that “a very sizable proportion of
women faculty members opt to avoid the dual challenge of work and family
by deciding not to have children” (p. 75). The research of Drago and othersshows that more women are delaying marriage or families to pursue academic
promotion. With increased competition for the limited tenure and tenuretrack appointments, women are attempting to become the “ideal worker”(Drago and others, 2005; Gappa, Austin, and Trice, 2007). This model
requires long hours and commitment to a career that having family responsibilities may impede.
The nature of the tenure system itself encourages apprehension.
According to Haag (2005), failure to receive tenure due to employment
discrimination is difficult to prove in court. The reasons given for the denialof tenure may not be completely transparent. Women may be penalized forhaving assumed additional responsibilities in service or committee workthat are not weighed heavily during this process. Haag also contends thatsome of the underlying reasons may be peripheral to faculty work, including reasons such as simple dislike, personality conflicts, or manner of dress.
She is troubled that under the guise of collegiality, there are many ways inwhich a faculty member can be rejected that may not be related to her
professional capacity.
Since 1991, when jury trials were allowed in the litigation of employment
discrimination cases, such suits have increased (Haag, 2005). Because of theemotion involved, juries may rule in favor of the plaintiffs in such cases
more often than judges might. However, suits involve risks. Institutions may
be less willing to hire former plaintiffs. The potential that taking leave ordelaying the tenure clock could be unofficially factored into the tenure decision is a reason that women, and men, may be unwilling to use such policies.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI: 10.1002/he

58

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS

Women Faculty in Selected Other Countries
According to the literature, many female faculty in Australia, Canada, andthe United Kingdom feel a keen sense of marginalization (Skelton, 2005;
Kjeldal, Rindfleish, and Sheridan, 2005; Wyn, Acker, and Richards, 2000).
Wyn, Acker, and Richards (2000) observe, “For a majority of [female facultyin management positions in these countries], a sense of otherness was
openly and bluntly reinforced at a point early in their careers” (p. 38). The
manifested forms of discrimination in these women’s situations included
nonacceptance of research proposals considered sympathetic to women’sissues, pressure to change personality traits in order to be perceived as more
feminine, and criticism of appearance and dress.
Women can be philosophically divided even within the female community. The division lines may be drawn by generation, position, or social
activity with men (Skelton, 2005). It is important to note that “being awoman in academia does not mean being a feminist” (Skelton, 2005,
p. 327). Skelton contends that women are pressured to determine their role
as social actors. Her research found that women of different generations“recount incidents of sexism and masculinism in the academy and also
identified where other, often more senior and often feminist, women had
marginalized or subordinated them” (p. 329).
Australia has experienced a rise in part-time nontenure-type positionsin its institutions similar to that in the United States. A national policy
against discrimination and in support of gender equity has been in placesince the 1980s. Yet female ascension to the upper ranks of senior academic
positions has moved at a snail’s pace. Inequity for females has manifested
itself in the form of fewer advancement opportunities, lower pay,
and increased teaching loads compared to males (Kjeldal, Rindfleish, andSheridan, 2005).
The prevalence of men’s gathering establishments in Australia has led
some women to publicly voice their beliefs that “some males had been‘courting favours’ with senior male colleagues and have been able to negotiate special deals for themselves that were not offered to women” (Kjeldal,
Rindfleish, and Sheridan, p. 438). In this way, social norms in Australia may
help maintain an unofficial policy of promotion of men over their female
counterparts.
Chinese institutions of higher education offer the comparative
perspective of a world power that has a political system and social traditionsquite different from those of the West. In the area of women faculty, China
has “put into place some policies conducive to the material equity between
men and women” (Gaskell and others, 2004, p. 512).
The modern Communist tradition in China has generally stressedsocial equality and equal access to facilities. The increasingly global andcommercial relationships that China has developed lately, however, haveironically led to the emergence of increasing gender discrimination:
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI: 10.1002/he• “Bias avoidance” (Dragoand others, 2005).
• Employment
discrimination• Establishing a work/lifebalance• Abstract definition ofcollegiality• Positive and negative
production (how to avoid
bias without losing
work/life balance).

Challenges for
American Female
Faculty• Growing percentage
and number ofpart-time faculty
positions• Influence ofgender expectations
and norms• Work/life balanceissues• Masculine frameworkof higher education• Female access to higher
education, including
the Ph.D.
• Cultural norms of maleand female interaction• Biologically based norms
widely accepted by aparticular society

GlobalCommunity
Challenges• Access to higher
education, including thePh.D• Females relegated to
specified disciplines(Gaskell and others,
2004)• Gender assumptions• Significant domestic load
• Females must operate
within male framework

Challenges for
Global Female
Faculty• Reinforce the importance of mentoring and networking opportunities.
• Provide information about job demands, and promote early family planning.
• Understand financial strategies and concepts and how they apply to career decisions.
• Secure tenure prior to revealing personal agenda (for example, nonmainstream research interests).

Strategies for Female Faculty Success• Difficulty in establishinga clear definition ofcollegiality• Bias-avoidance strategies• Legal challenges
and jury trials fordiscrimination suits

American
Challenges

CommonChallenges

Figure 6.1. Challenges for Female Faculty and Strategies for Overcoming Them

60

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS“An official party line on gender equality has given way to the expression ofa much greater diversity of views about women in the public arena” (Gaskell
and others, 2004, p. 515).
This variety of views has included many voiced by those who would
like to see Chinese women remain in the background. “Overall they [societal
norms] reveal a high degree of acceptance of gender differences and a belief
that this difference is biologically based” (Gaskell and others, 2004, p. 524).
It is important to note that such biological arguments of inferiority have andcontinue to be used in many parts of the world. In China, such views have
simply been made more visible recently.

Conclusion and Recommendations
Although insights have been gathered from several countries, additional
research is needed on the challenges female faculty face in nations where
the formalized education of women and girls is relatively new.
Figure 6.1 displays similarities and differences in challenges that female
faculty in the United States and globally face. The far left and right rectangles on the figure list challenges for American and global female faculty,
respectively. The left side of the interlocking ovals notes the distinctive
American female faculty issues and strategies. The right side of the interlocking ovals notes the distinctive female faculty issues. The overlapping
area between the ovals notes similar challenges.
Figure 6.1 also addresses the final area analyzed in this chapter: what
faculty can do to make the female faculty experience more equitable to thatof the male faculty experience. Successful senior male and female facultyagree that achieving tenure is not an easy task, and it is particularly elusive
for females (August and Waltman, 2006; Bentley and Blackburn, 1993;
Gerdes, 2003; Hult, Callister, and Sullivan, 2005; Parma, 2006).
Hult, Callister, and Sullivan (2005, p. 55) suggest six steps to improvethe climate for female faculty:
1. Assess all institutional departments to locate programs with poor
gender representation and provide training to chairs on strategies forinclusion or recruiting of future faculty.
2. Make fiscal and faculty proceedings and decisions as transparent as
possible.
3. Make work/life balance a priority, and seek ways to be flexible in faculty
use of institutional family leave policies.
4. Include, but do not overrepresent, women on committees.
5. Create policies that encourage dual-career couples.
6. Encourage faculty collaboration on research within and outside
departments.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI: 10.1002/he

FEMALE FACULTY: CHALLENGES AND CHOICES61

Gerdes (2003) notes that not only advice but also action may berequired of senior faculty to advance the quest for change. Citing recommendations from the American Psychological Association, she concedes that
“responsibility for the situation of women in higher education rests
primarily on the institutions rather than individuals” (p. 266). Yet, she
contends, “Senior academic women must use their positions to influence
institutions until the institutional structures fit women as well as men anduntil women’s issues truly become people’s issues” (p. 269). Gerdes cautions
future female faculty against becoming too openly critical of institutional
policies or revealing their personal agendas. The women cited in her study
suggest that only after achieving tenure have female faculty reached theproper time to reveal their true motivations (Gerdes, 2003).
August and Waltman (2006) take the position that women should
focus on methods of obtaining career satisfaction. They identified suchfactors as the nature of the job itself—teaching, research, community
service, peer valuation, access to resources, and collegiality—as factors
women should have in mind when they make career decisions. Work/lifebalance, mentoring opportunities, and a clear understanding of the tenure
process can have significant impact for a faculty member.
Prospective faculty members, particularly females, have a difficult journeyahead in navigating the path to tenure. The changing nature of employment,
legal and societal norms, and gender discrimination from males and females
are impediments not easily removed. Achieving a work/life balance has been
increasingly difficult as competition for and expectations of faculty haveincreased.
American female faculty are not alone. Global issues of access andequity exist, as do opportunities for collaboration in seeking solutions todomestic and international challenges. Women should heed the advice of
those who have successfully achieved status as senior female faculty toprovide guidance in their own quests. These experiences and future efforts
may be used to bridge the gap of inequity in academia.
References
Aguirre, A. (ed.) “Issues Facing Women and Minority Faculty.” In A. Aguirre (ed.),
Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2000.
August, L., and Waltman, J. “Culture, Climate, and Contribution: Career Satisfaction
Among Female Faculty.” Research in Higher Education, 2006, 45(2), 177–192.
Barbezat, D. A., and Hughes, J. W. “Salary Structure Effects and the Gender Pay Gap in
Academia.” Research in Higher Education, 2006, 46(6), 621–640.
Bentley, R. J., and Blackburn, R. T. “Two Decades of Gains for Female Faculty?” Teachers College Record, 1993, 93(4), 697-709.
Drago, R., and others. “Bias Against Caregiving.” Academe, 2005, 91(5), 22–25.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., and Trice, A. G. Rethinking Faculty Work: Higher Education’s
Strategic Imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI: 10.1002/he

62

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS

Gaskell, J., and others. “The Participation of Women Faculty in Chinese Universities:
Paradoxes of Globalization.” Gender and Education, 2004, 16(4), 511–529.
Gerdes, E. P. “Do It Your Way: Advice from Senior Academic Women.” Innovative Higher
Education, 2003, 27(4), 253–275.
Haag, P. “Is Collegiality Code for Hating Ethnic, Racial, and Female Faculty at Tenure
Time?” Education Digest, 2005, 71(1), 57–62.
Hult, C., Callister, R., and Sullivan, K. “Is There a Global Warming Toward Women in
Academia?” Liberal Education, 2005, 91(3), 50–57.
Kjedal, S. E., Rindfleish, J., and Sheridan, A. “Deal-Making and Rule-Breaking: Behind
the Facade of Equity in Academia.” Gender and Education, 2005, 17(4), 431–447.
Morley, L. “Opportunity or Exploitation? Women and Quality Assurance in Higher
Education.” Gender and Education, 2005, 17(4), 411–429.
Parma, L. W. “Sex Differences in Faculty Tenure and Promotion: The Contribution of
Family Ties.” Research in Higher Education, 2006, 46(3), 277–307.
Schuster, J. H., and Finkelstein, M. J. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic
Work and Careers. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Skelton, C. “The ‘Individualized’ (Woman) in the Academy: Ulrich Beck, Gender andPower.” Gender and Education, 2005, 17(3), 319–332.
West, M. S., and Curtis, J. W. “Organizing Around Gender Equity.” In J. W. Curtis and
M. S. West (eds.), AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators 2006. Washington, D.C.:
American Association of University Professors, 2006.
Williams, J. C. “Hitting the Maternal Wall.” Academe, 2006, 90(6), 16–20.
Wyn, J., Acker, S., and Richards, E. “Making a Difference: Women in Management inAustralian and Canadian Faculties of Education.” Gender and Education, 2000, 12(4),35–47.

JENNIFER N. SAMBLE is the associate director of athletics/senior woman
administrator at Valparaiso University and part-time faculty member at
Davenport University.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION • DOI: 10.1002/he