Factors influencing Career Progression Physics Men have different career paths from Physics Women. The typical Physics man has had a traditional career path (see Figure 1) School → BSc → PhD → Postdoctoral Fellowship(s)/ Fellowship(s) → Academic appointment → Tenure • Some men have children and most have not been primary carer • Most men perceive they spend more time on research than teaching • Most men have strategies to facilitate their research • Many men have taken study leave Figure 1. Traditional academic career progression FORMAL CAREER PROGRESS PHD POSTDOCT AL RESEARCH FELL W HIP(S) LEVEL B CADEMIC LEVEL C ACADEMIC LEVEL D ACADEMIC LEVEL E ACADEMIC The traditional academic career progression also typically includes periods of sabbatical or study leave where research projects can be initiated and/ or progressed without interruption from teaching or administrative duties.
Figure 2: Factors influencing the career progress of women FORMAL CAREER PROGRESS FACTORS AFFECTING CAREER PHD PART OR FULL TIME WORK AS A TUTOR OR RESEARCH ASSISTANT LEVEL B ACADEMIC with PROGRESS AND RESEARCH OUTPUT IN PATH (due to primary care responsibilities, financial requirements, and/or partner’s career) POST DOC STUDY OPPORTUNITIES predominantly teaching focus SEEN AS PRIMARILY A “TEACHER” LOST LEVEL C ACADEMIC with predominantly teaching focus LOW(ER) ASSIGNED TEACHING LOAD PROHIBITIVE OF RESEARCH LACK OF TIME FOR RESEARCH ABSENCE OF ESTABLISHED RESEARCH, GRANT AND PUBLICATION PROFILE RESEARCH OUTPUT LACK OF TIME FOR RESEARCH HIGHER CONTACT HOURS AND HEAVIER TEACHING LOAD FEW ALLOWANCES ON WLU DIFFICULTY ATTRACTING GRANTS AND GRADUATE STUDENTS ASSIGNED TEACHING LOADS PROHIBITIVE OF RESEARCH LOW RESEARCH OUTPUT (e.g. publications) SCHEME FEW RESEARCH RESOURCES LOW(ER) RESEARCH OUTPUT (grants, graduate research students) LACK OF TIME FOR RESEARCH SSP AND OTHER LEAVE RESTRICTED DUE TO PRIMARY LOW(ER) RESEARCH OUTPUT
Table 3: School of Physics academic staff profile (1990-94) level 1990 F M 1991 F M 1992 F M 1993 F M 1994 F M E D C B 6 1 7 12 1 5 6 1 7 13 1 6 7 1 9 11 1.8 8 6 1 9 13 1.8 6 7 1 8 1 14 1.8 5 total total staff 2 30 32 2 32 34 2.8 35 37.8 2.8 34 36.8 3.8 34 37.8 %women 6.3% 5.9% 7.4% 7.6% 10.0% Source: Staff Equity Review, School of Physics UNSW (Morrison, 1995) *The 1990-94 statistics do not include the associate lecturers. These were primarily, though not solely, part-time PhD students. Table 4: School of Physics academic staff profile (2000-04) level 2000 F M 2001 F M 2002 F M 2003 F M 2004 F M E D C B 8 9 2 5 2.8 2 7 11 3 4 2.8 1 8 1 10 2 4 2.8 2 9 1 12 2 1 3.8 1 1 9 10 2.2 1 2.8 2 total total staff 4.8 24 28.8 5.8 23 28.8 5.8 24 29.8 6.8 23 29.8 6 22 28 %women 16.7 20.1 19.5 22.8 21.4 In the period 1990-94 the academic levels of male staff were more senior on average than the academic levels of female staff (Figure 8). In the period 2000-2004, despite recruitment of more women and the promotion, retirements and resignations of both male and female academic staff, the situation has generally not improved (Figure 9). Comparison of the data for male staff members shows a general progression through the academic ranks with a trend of increasing number of professors despite retirements (e.g. see Figure 9). The female staff including those who have been long term employees (>10 years) of the University have not been promoted at the same rate as their male colleagues. In the period 1990-95 on average ~45% of male teaching staff were associate professors and professors. In 2004, 90% of male teaching staff were associate professors and professors. All female teaching staff including long term employees were lecturers and senior lecturers. The only female professor is relatively recently recruited ARC Federation Fellow (research academic).
many of the women had experienced this sort of exploitation previously (not necessarily at UNSW 28). As a result, some female academics were wary or reluctant to enter into collaborative arrangements. Such cases suggest that a formal clarification of mentoring and collaboration roles and processes is required so that the allocation of responsibility, work loads and recognition is not left to the ambiguities and misunderstandings that can arise in informal arrangements. 5.4.4. Promotion Although it is never official, people [in promotions] will say off the record that they will not take teaching into account. (Male academic) Focus group, survey and statistical data show that career advancement is very much dependent on research productivity and that this is manifest, particularly in the promotions process. All survey responses from staff indicated that they would seek promotion on the basis of research, either exclusively or primarily if in combination with teaching and service. Thus, according to the focus group participants, the general attitude among academics – particularly successful academics – is that Research is the most important thing and teaching is a thing that they have to do. Research is what counts. (Female academic) The academics most negatively affected by the prioritisation of research over teaching are those with heavy teaching loads and/or few “research resources” (including for example a research team of PhD students), such as junior academics and those with high teaching loads (quantitative data shows that women primarily, but not exclusively, fall into both these categories). This is because teaching and related administrative and pastoral care activities compete directly with research activities for time, and teaching holds less weight than research in the promotions process. This is particularly disappointing when the academic is not recognised for the teaching load with a high number of contact hours and associated pastoral duties: When I went for promotion, someone from the committee said [that I’ve] “got an enormous amount of teaching” and that I’m “too eager to take on teaching” … they’d just say “you haven’t published very much, isn’t that terrible, and you didn’t get any grants” … I’ve been penalised for having this enormous load of teaching that’s being varied all the time. [Female Academic] 28 Some more recently recruited members of staff said that despite the issues at UNSW, they felt that UNSW is “better” than their previous place of employment.
access to resources such as funding, workload credits, postgraduate students, research teams, technical support, professional networks etc. Those who do not have these advantages must use their basic resources – time, labour and skill – to make themselves valuable to the School. Often this group encompasses level B and C academics, academics entering a new research field, academics that specialise in education and academics with heavy teaching loads. Academic women often fall into this category, but by no means exclusively. Currently, one of the major reasons the School is productive is because teaching and research is unevenly distributed amongst academics, with some academics doing predominantly teaching and others predominantly research. This has been enabled somewhat by the gendered differentiation of academic roles within the School due to women's and men's contrasting career trajectories (traditional versus non-traditional). The development of other mechanisms (resource allocation, networking, decision making), individual work/career strategies and unconscious attitudes have also contributed to the current situation. The fair and equal distribution of resources (funding, technical and administrative support etc.) and responsibilities (teaching, pastoral care etc.) can go some way to supporting academic staff individually and the School as a whole. Ultimately however, academic career progression, the productivity of the University, and its national and international profile, requires a decision to actively and equitably support all members of the University: a decision that should be supported at all levels of University management.
Lafferty G. and Fleming, J. 2000 “The restructuring of Academic work in Australia: power, management and gender.” British Journal of the Sociology of Education Vol. 21 (2) 257-267. Lawler, A. 1999 “Tenured Women Battle to Make It Less Lonely at the Top”. Science, Vol. 286. pp. 1272 – 1278 Maddox, B. 2002 Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA HarperCollins; New York Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999 A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT, USA ( McGrayne, S.B. 1998 Nobel Prize Women in Science: Citadel Press New York McNeil, L. and Sher, M. 1999 “Report On The Dual-Career-Couple Survey”, American Physical Society, Meitner, Lise. CWP < > MIT news office 2001, press release. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jan 30, 2001 Morrison J. 1995 Staff Equity Review, School of Physics UNSW Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Osborn, M., Rees, T., Bosch, M., Hermann, C., Hilden, J., McLaren, A., Palomba, R., Peltonen, L., Vela, C., Weis, D., Wold, A. and Wennerås, C. 2000, “The 'ETAN' report on women and science: Science Policies in the European Union: Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality.” A report from the ETAN Network on Women and Science, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Oxford University 2001, Athena Report and Action Plan, UK. Probert, B., Ewer, P. and Leong, K. 2002. “Gender equity in academic employment at the University of New South Wales.” Investigation commissioned by UNSW, Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University. June. 2002. or please contact
9b. If yes, for how long? 9c. Did you work part time during that period?  Yes  No Comment (optional) 10a. What year did you start work at UNSW? 10b. At what level were you appointed? 11a. How many times have you applied for promotion at UNSW? 11b. How many times were you successful? 11c. On what basis have you, or would you seek promotion?  Research  Teaching  Service  Other 12. Please indicate on the pie chart below the proportion of time you spend on research, teaching, administration, etc and family responsibilities in an average working week. Please include a rough estimate in hours next to each activity.
13. How much do you agree with the following statement: “The Physics Work Load Unit (WLU) teaching scheme fairly distributes teaching and administrative duties amongst academic staff.” Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree or Agree Disagree 14. Do you think gender issues are important in the School of Physics?  Very  Important  Slightly  Not Important Important Important 15. Are there any other issues that you believe are of importance to the Academic Staff at the School?