INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. Hie sign or “target** for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo*
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University:
/VUciorilms

International

3 0 0 N. ZEEB RO A D , AN N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O ND ON WC1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8112128

Nevels, James N.

AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF FACULTY WOMEN AND FACULTY
MEN TOWARD FACULTY WOMEN IN SELECTED DEPARTMENTS AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Aibor, MI 48106

Copyright 1981
by
Nevels, J a m e s N.
All Rights R eserved

1980

PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible
way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this
document have been identified here with a check mark
■
1.

Glossy photographs

2.

Colored illustrations

3.

Photographs with dark background

4.

Illustrations are poor copy ____

5.

°rint shows through as there is text on both sides of page

6.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

7.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in. spine

8.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print

9.

_____ lacking when material received, and not available
Page(s)
from school or author

^

10.

Page(s) ________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text
follows

11.

Poor carbon copy ________

12.

Not original copy, several pages with blurred type

13.

Appendix pages are

poor copy __

14.

Original copy with

light type _

15.

Curling and wrinkled pages ________

16.

Other

___

_______________________ _

University
Mfcrbrilms
International
3 0 0 N. / E E B R D . A N N A H B O H . Ml .13 1 0 0 Oil 3 t 7( 31 4 7 0 0

AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF FACULTY
WOMEN AND FACULTY MEN TOWARD FACULTY
WOMEN IN SELECTED DEPARTMENTS AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
James N. Nevels

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Higher Education Administration
1980

ABSTRACT
AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF FACULTY
WOMEN AND FACULTY MEN TOWARD FACULTY
WOMEN IN SELECTED DEPARTMENTS AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
James N. Nevels

Purpose of the study.

The study was conducted

to explore attitudes and opinions, of selected faculty
women toward other faculty women, and to explore atti­
tudes and opinions of selected faculty men toward
faculty women in higher education.
Procedures and sources of d a t a .

Data utilized

in the study were obtained from responses to a mailed
questionnaire to 59 faculty women and 165 faculty men.
A response rate of 60 percent was obtained from 42
faculty women and 88 faculty men from selected depart­
ments in two separate colleges at Michigan State
University.
Using the statistical procedure, analysis of
variance, comparisons of the two groups' responses
across colleges to each category of items on the atti­
tude survey was conducted.

James N. Nevels
Conclusions.

The findings of this study

revealed significant differences in opinions and atti­
tudes between faculty women and faculty men on ten of
the fifteen categories under investigation.

Although

faculty women and faculty men expressed no significant
differences in expressed attitudes and opinions with
regard to faculty women in higher education in terms of
tenure, personality characteristics, research and other
scholarly writing, use of full potential, and alterna­
tive work patterns, significant proportions differed in
their beliefs with regard to employment opportunities,
promotion, pay, career development, job mobility,
teaching effectiveness, contributions to the profes­
sion, acceptance by associates, and job satisfaction.
As a result, several conclusions were derived from the
data of this study:
1.

In sharp contrast to their male colleagues,

faculty women did not believe that employment and
advancement opportunities were equal in higher educa­
tion.

For example, women believed that hiring dif­

ferentials, as well as rank and salary differentials,
favored men.
2.

Women were fairly adamant in their expressed

opinion that their professional commitment was as strong
as their male counterparts.

Although they did admit

that they do not believe they are as geographically

James N. Nevels
mobile as men, they do not believe that their turnover
rate is higher than that of men.
3.

The findings showed fairly consistent

agreement between faculty women and faculty men across
colleges that faculty women are more effective as
teachers than faculty men; however, men were more
adamant in their insistence of no sex differences in
this category.
4.

While men reported that they believed that

faculty women feel accepted and supported by male
colleagues, women, on the other hand, disagreed.

Women

indicated that they did not think they were taken
seriously when sent out to represent the university, and
they believed that their male colleagues, too often,
tended to patronize them and to make hostile comments
about them.
5.

Similarly, the data indicated that men

faculty members tended to believe that women were more
satisfied with their positions than were the expressed
opinions of women faculty members.

The majority of

faculty men felt that, on a whole, women were satisfied
with their jobs; however, women indicated that they were
not satisfied with their positions, although they were
satisfied with certain aspects of their jobs, such as
the relationships they have had with their department
chairpersons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The active encouragement and support of many
people have helped to make the completion of this
research project possible.
The writer wishes to express special acknow­
ledgment to his committee chairman, Dr. Richard L.
Featherstone,

for his careful guidance, sincere concern

and overall vital role that he played in helping this
writer to accomplish what at times seemed a very
distant, but always challenging, goal.

Dr.

Featherstone*s sensitive and competent assistance
helped to make this journey into scholarship a memor­
able experience.
Heartfelt thanks and appreciation are due to
Dr. John Suehr, Dr. Marvin Grandstaff, and Dr. Henry
Clay Smith, members of the Guidance Committee, who
played a critical role in this writer's intellectual
growth and development.
Special acknowledgment is made to Dr. Dozier
Thornton and Dr. Walter Johnson.

With sadness and deep

regret, this writer acknowledges a permanent debt that
can never be repaid to one who so freely gave,
Dr. Russell J. Kleis

(deceased).
ii

Special remembrance to Gabbie Belli and Carol
Blumberg for their helpful assistance with statistical
questions.

Appreciation is also due to Judy Charland

whose typing skills are unmatched in this area.
Lastly, the writer recognizes that special
gratitude is due to Michelle, whose love, interest,
encouragement and understanding helped to make this
goal possible, and to Stanley and Tyrone, our sons, for
whom we have every confidence will complete the dream.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ...................................

vi

LIST OF F I G U R E S ....................................viii
Chapter
1.

2.

INTRODUCTION

.............................

1

Enrollment Trends
......................
Statement of the P r o b l e m ................
Questions to be A n s w e r e d ................
Significance of the S t u d y .............
Definition of T e r m s ...................
Limitations and Delimitations
. . . .
D e s i g n ...................................
Organization of the Study and Overview
of C h a p t e r s ..........................

16
32
32
33
35
41
42

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ...................
Extent and Magnitude of the Problem . .
An Historical Overview of Women
Faculty in Institutions of
Higher Education ......................
Opposition to Equal Educational and
Professional Opportunities for Women
.
Present Trends in the Equality of
Professional Opportunities for
Faculty Women ..........................
Advancement Opportunities for Women
Faculty Members
......................
Other Contributions of Faculty Women to
the P r o f e s s i o n ......................
Use of Full Potential of Women Faculty
.
Additional Sex Specific Factors
Affecting Career Opportunities
of Women F a c u l t y ......................
Research Related to the Study
. . . .

3.

44
45
45
46
52

86
101
126
131
143
161

METHODS OF THE S T U D Y ......................

171

Population of the S t u d y ................

171

iv

Chapter

Page
Procedure of the S t u d y ................
The Instrument of the S t u d y .............
Acquisition of the D a t a ................
Analysis of the D a t a ...................

4.

5.

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

.

171
175
17 9
182
.

192

Major H y p o t h e s e s .......................
Analysis of the Problems of the Study
.
Profile of Respondents
................
Data Relevant to Questions Examined
. -

193
199
200
208

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.

237

Summary of the Findings of the Study . .
C o n c l u s i o n s .............................
Recommendations ..........................
Suggestions for Further Study
. .
. .

238
251
259
261

Appendix
A.

FIRST LETTER OF T R A N S M I T T A L ..............

264

B.

SECOND LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

..............

266

C.

THIRD LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

..............

268

D.

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ..............................

27 0

E.

LIST OF INTERVIEW Q U E S T I O N S ..............

27 6

F.

PERCENTAGE OF R E S P O N S E S ....................

27 8

G.

SAMPLE MEANS:
CELL, MARGINAL, AND GRAND
MEANS FOR CATEGORIES 1 - 1 5 ................

293

BIBLIOGRAPHY

......................................

v

309

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

Number of Women Scholars, 1956

2.

Distribution of Faculty Members
I n t e r v i e w e d ..............................

173

3.

Mailed and Returned Questionnaires

181

4.

Actual Composition of Faculty Members of
Selected Departments in University
College and the College of Business
.................
Responding

201

Number of Years on Faculty of
R e s p o n d e n t s ..............................

202

6.

Rank of R e s p o n d e n t s ........................

203

7.

Marital Status of Respondents

204

8.

Number of Years on the Faculty in
Current Department
................

2 05

Age of R e s p o n d e n t s ........................

2 06

10.

Highest Degrees Attained by Respondents

207

11.

Type of Appointments of Respondents

12.

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 1
..............................

210

Summary of Analysis of
Category 2 . . .

Variance for
................

213

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 3 ..............................

216

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 4
..............................

218

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 5 ..............................

219

5.

9.

13.
14.
15.
16.

vi

. . . .

.

.

82

.

. . . .

.

.

.

208

Table
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

Page
Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 6 .............................

222

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 7 .............................

224

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 8 .............................

225

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 9 .............................

227

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 1 0 .............................

228

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 1 1 .............................

229

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 1 2 .............................

231

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 1 3 .............................

233

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 1 4 .............................

235

Summary of Analysis of Variance for
Category 1 5 .............................

236

Summary of the Findings of the Study

239

vii

.

.

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure
I*

Sample Means for Category 2

..............

211

2.

Sample Means for Cagegory 3

..............

215

3.

Sample Means for Category 6

..............

221

viii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

No more persistent problem exists in higher
educational institutions, and few more difficult, than
that of the present status of female faculty in the
colleges and universities throughout the nation.

Against

a backdrop of anticipated enrollment decline and finan­
cial stringency, the complex nature of the problem of
equal opportunity for female faculty members derives
from the fact that in discussing this important question,
academic administrators are forced to come to grips with
the fundamental aims and purposes of higher education,
its profound influence on the various dimensions of
society, and the increasingly pervasive influence of
society on this major institution.
When Herbert Spencer raised the question,

"What

knowledge is of most worth?" in contemporary translation
he might well have asked, "Of what value is each school
worth?"

This profound question stimulates inquiry into

moral as well as secular issues.

For example, a

thorough examination of the problems facing women in
academe illuminates the central question of our time;
1

2
that is, it raises.the question, ideological in nature,
as to whether or not our educational institutions are
just institutions.

Is there a clear national trend in

our institutions of higher education for the provision
of equality of opportunity for all faculty members in
general, and female faculty in particular?

The question

also involves the ambiguous issue of practicality.

In

the next decade or so, declining enrollment and finan­
cial exigency will continue to be of increasing concern
to educational administrators.

The need for viable

options will become more and more urgent and women in
academe could very well play a significant and dramatic
role in the resolution of these complex issues, an
important point that needs statement in its historic
setting.
Historically, administrators faced a similarly
challenging problem in the mid-nineteenth century.
What happened?

Stimulated by female activists with

ideological conviction that they were entitled to the
same educational opportunities as men, administrators in
institutions of higher education were compelled to admit
women into formerly all-male private and public institu­
tions.

In addition, economic pressures:

the Civil War,

economic depressions and dissatisfaction with the
curriculum combined to produce shrinking masculine
enrollments forcing some colleges to close their doors,

3
and threatening others.

Economic necessity, then,

provided the impetus for administrators to lift tradi­
tional barriers toward women, to abandon current institu­
tional practices, and to capitalize on this potential
source of tuition revenues by permitting women as legiti­
mate students.

As a result, colleges designed partic­

ularly for women were established, and others recruited
both men and women.

Therefore, ideological, but more

importantly, economic considerations were responsible
for nineteenth century breakthrough in admitting women
to colleges on an equal basis with men.*
The present condition of our economy, and other
social trends make the educational problems in the
latter half of the twentieth century, in many respects,
comparatively and uncomfortably similar to problems
faced by administrators in the mid-nineteenth century.
According to Parker, the expiration of G.I. benefits in
197 6 resulted in a decrease of over 33 percent in mascu­
line enrollment in post-secondary institutions that may
have exceeded 500,000 in the nation as a whole; economic
recessions and slowdowns, increasing inflation, limita­
tions on student financial aid, and increasing rise in
student fees have been contributing factors to

*Patricia Alberg Graham,
"Women in Academe,"
Science 169 (September 1970):1284.

4
anticipated enrollment downturns over the next several
2
years.
A major concern of women faculty members in
higher educational institutions, however,

lies in dis­

covering clues as to how educational planners are
reacting to current crisis.

Although evidence on

effects of present trends on women in academe is not
substantial,

some reports do suggest that proposed

measures to deal effectively with increasing problems
seem to fall into two categories:

(1) emergency and

somewhat traditional policies that threaten to impede
efforts of faculty women to achieve equality of oppor­
tunity, and

(2) more forward, practical recommendations

that recognize female faculty as key elements in facili­
tating measures designed to offset potential losses
and improve the delivery system of post-secondary
institutions.

Although exploration of the first cate­

gory is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of
the problem,

it is only sufficient for this research to

be primarily concerned with those measures identified in
the second category.
Authoritative studies have indicated that high
priority must be given to long-range planning involving

2

Garland Parker, "Higher Education Enrollments:
Implications for the 1980s," Topical Paper No. 8 (June
1977), p. 7.

5
measures to offset enrollment downturns, to make more
effective use of institutional resources, and increas­
ingly to improve the quality of post-secondary education
(Carnegie Commission on Higher Education).

Lack of such

planning will produce a number of "endangered species"
in the academic community.

3

Elaborating further on this

point, Parker states:
These could comprehend not only certain
categories, but also faculty and administrators,
and even many institutions, both public and
private. Also, some of the tender plantings in
the academic garden over the last decade, such
as educational development programs, for minor­
ity and disadvantaged groups, studies related
to women and ethnic groups, and various other
innovative curricular developments could be
among the first victims of the academic cutting
knife.4
Other disadvantages cited by Parker include the
prospects that faculty could face possibilities of
heavier student loads, and larger classrooms.

Even

research activities and graduate programs may face cut­
backs, along with duplicative academic programs.

Fewer

new faculty positions may be expected and retrenchement
practices have been considered.3
Such considerations, of course, could have
adverse effects on women.

3Ibid.
^Ibid.
3Ibid., p. 8.

For example, the common

6
criteria used for determining personnel to be laid off
is length of service.

Having only recently penetrated

the system to any significant degree, academic women
are heavily represented in the lower ranks, and are more
frequently found among the non-tenured members of most
faculties in colleges and universities.

A report from

the National Center for Educational Statistics

(NCES)

labeled Conditions of Education points out that as of
1975-1976 women as percentage of full-time instructional
faculty on nine- to ten-month contracts in institutions
of higher education were 24.2 percent of all ranks;
they represented 9.8 percent of all professors; they
constituted 16.8 percent of all assistant professors,
and they numbered 40.5 percent of all instructors.6
It is not difficult to understand the concern of
professional women in academe as to how educational
administrators are reacting to current enrollment and
fiscal problems.

They fully understand the meaning of

the slogan "Last hired, first fired."

Strommer sums up

the discouraging trends in the progress of women faculty
members in her statement that,

"Despite glowing news­

paper accounts of female firsts, despite HEW and
Affirmative Action, the progress academic women have

g

National Center for Educational Statistics,
Conditions of Education (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1975), p. 71.

7
made in the last thirty-five years looks like a
perverse version of the children's game of giant steps—
7

two back for each one forward."
On the whole, it appears that educational admin­
istrators can opt to view the current crisis only within
the context of major difficulties, or they can be
encouraged to take a more balanced perspective.

While

the traditional approach practiced by some administra­
tors serving within financially strapped institutions
includes the utilization of such cost-cutting techniques
as hiring freezes, freezing, and, in some cases, elimi­
nating tenure altogether, work sharing, and early
retirement, there are also solutions to current problems
that offer opportunities.

What is needed are data and

information helpful in compelling administrators to
perceive current problems from a more favorable
. .

position.

8

A more forward and practical approach for
twentieth century educational administrators, within the
context of justice and economic realities,

is the method

that worked for mid-nineteenth century administrators.
^Diane W. Strommer, "Wither Thou Goest:
Feminism and the Education of Women," Journal of NAWDAC
39 (Winter 1976):81.
g
Equal Rights for Women Project, and Education
of the States, Retrenchment on Education, Report No.
F7 6-9 (Education Finance Center:
Department of Research
and Information, May 1977), pp. 30-31.

8
When masculine enrollment dropped, threatening educa­
tional disaster for large numbers of institutions, mid­
nineteenth century administrators sought new female
clientele.

By capitalizing on that potential pool of

women who eagerly sought and welcomed the new educa­
tional opportunity, administrators not only made the
institutions more just, but also made more effective use
of available human resources in a period of economic
crisis.
Today, efforts on the part of individual insti­
tutions to achieve more effective use of its resources,
and thereby contribute to more effective use of resources
within the larger society are given support by the
research.

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education

book titled The More Effective Use of Resources;

An

Imperative for Higher Education recommends that institu­
tions emphasize the need to make wise decisions regarding
allocation of resources, use of faculty, and adaptation
to changing needs.

g

As in the mid-nineteenth century,

no greater pool of human resources (excluding minori­
ties, of course) exists in the latter half of the
twentieth century than in the potential offered by women
students.

q

Much of the utilization of this potential may

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The
More Effective Use of Resources: An Imperative for
Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1972b).

9
depend, to a large extent, on those women faculty members
(and men faculty)

sensitive to the needs and aspirations

of female students.

Linked together, as if by destiny,

it might be concluded in fact that these two groups
could offer meaningful options to current institutional
problems.
Factors in institutions serving as major obsta­
cles to retention and recruitment possibilities, however,
are recognized by researchers and commentators.

Although

women outnumber men in completing secondary school,
fewer women than men are admitted to post-secondary
institutions.

Westervelt, Astin and Hornig postulate:

The national ratio now stands at 46 percent
women and 54 percent men; while the ablest
girls can all get into some college, the
best and most selective universities maintain
an average ratio of only 40:60, which means
that many of our best women cannot get the
best degree o f f e r e d . 10
Other researchers reveal that in the past fifty years
proportions of women participating in degree programs
have changed very little.

Graham reports that in 1920

women constituted 47 percent of the country's under­
graduates and received about 15 percent of the Ph.D.'s.
In 1930, the proportion was about the same.

Women in the

1960s constituted only about 40 percent of undergraduates
10Lillie S. Hornig, "Affirmative Action Through
Affirmative Attitudes," Women in Academia:
Evolving
Policies Toward Equal Opportunities (New York:
Praeger,
1975), p. 10.

10
and received about 10 percent of the doctorates.
Graham concludes that:
Although the percentage of women receiving
doctorates is rising gradually from a low in
the late 1950s and early 1960s, it still has
not reached the high attained in the late
1920s. Various studies have shown that
between 75 and 90 percent of the "wellqualified" students who do not go on to
college are w o m e n . H
A report by the American Council on Education
gives similar data by reporting:
In 1930, women earned 40 percent bachelor's,
first professional, and master's degrees,
and 15 percent of doctoral degrees.
In 19701971, women earned 42 percent of bachelor's
and first professional degrees, 40 percent of
master's degrees, and 14 percent of doctoral
degrees.12
Existing research clearly and unequivocally
demonstrates that almost from the time women enter post­
secondary institutions, they face formidable structural
barriers to their educational goals.

Westervelt

identifies numerous obstacles to women students,
accounting for their underrepresentation in post­
secondary institutions.
categories including:

She has grouped them into five
admission practices, financial

aid practices, institutional regulations, differences in

^Graham, op. cit., p. 1284.
12

Charles Anderson, ed., A Fact Book on Higher
Education: Demographic and Economic Data, Farst Issue/
1976 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education,
1976), pp. 76.1-76.72.

11
curriculum planning and student services, and faculty
and staff attitudes and behavior.

13

This research is in

part concerned with faculty attitudes and behavior,
particularly with attitudes and behavior of female
faculty instrumental in the retention of women students
currently enrolled in post-secondary institutions, and
recruitment of new female clientele.
Concerned about the effects of present trends on
schools of education within the larger institution of
higher education, Browder points out that one of the
major approaches schools of education must take is
intensive search for new potential student populations.
This administrative leader states,

"It must be recog­

nized that the critical factor in determining the value
of each school's worth is its own faculty."

14

Recruit­

ment efforts to increase student population have a
valuable resource in the pool of potential women
students.

Female faculty members can be, as Browder

claims of all faculty, the institution’s "richest
resource or its greatest liability."

15

13Esther Manning Westervelt, Barriers to Women's
Participation in Post-Secondary Education; A Review of
Research and Commentary as of 197 3-74 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 3.
14
Lesley H. Browder, Jr., "Where Are Schools of
Education Going?," Journal of Teacher Education XXIX
(July-August 1978) :52-5^T.
33Ibid., p. 56.

12
It is perhaps simplistic to observe that
academic women are part of the larger institutional
structure.

What is important is that the interests of

each affect the other in significant ways.
this mean?

For faculty women,

What does

it means that they have

the fundamental right— made legal since 1970— to hold
institutions accountable for the disparity between its
ideals and its practices.

Quite simply, it means that

academic women have come to realize that they may no
longer tolerate the fundamental contradiction between
the institution's ideal of equality and the denial in
practice of equal treatment of the sexes.

It means that

the concept of equal treatment includes the obligation
by institutions to eliminate artificial barriers to
equality and take affirmative action to overcome past
. . *.
16
injustices.
Further inquiry into the interactive process
between women faculty and post-secondary institutions
requires examination of yet another question.

What can

faculty women do to help meet the institutions' needs?
The provision of adequate commitment and involvement is
necessary on the part of faculty women and institutions
16

This idea, with slight modifications, follows
the general point of view of Alan Pifer and Avery Russell,
"Responsibility and Public Policy:
Is It a Moral Ques­
tion?" in Helen S. Astin and Werner Z. Hirsch, eds., The
Higher Education of Women:
Essays in Honor of Rosemary
Park (New York:
Praeger, 1978), p. 166.

13
in order to work jointly in the provision of a tenable
solution to current crisis.

Neither can afford to

ignore or subordinate the interests of the other.

In a

moral sense, equitable treatment of its constituency
indicates a willingness on the part of institutions of
higher education to become more democratic— to depart
from a narrow time perspective.

As Rossi points out,

"The contemporary college is no longer a local, paro­
chial, social community turned in upon itself, but a
cosmopolitan national community of talented professionals."

17

In making this transition from a local to a

cosmopolitan institution, the institution needs the
resources of its women faculty.

In a practical sense,

simply stated, the institution needs students.

Faculty

women can play one of the most decisive roles in the
retention of women students presently enrolled, and in
the recruitment of new female clientele.

They can

provide needed role models; they can supply needed
support and encouragement; they can help women make more
productive choices.
Other support for the proposition that develop­
ment of an important and unique relationship between
women faculty and women students can be beneficial is

17

Alice Rossi, "Discrimination and Demography
Restrict Opportunity for Academic Women," College and
University Business 48 (February 1970):78.

14
provided by numerous authors found in the literature of
higher education.

Elizabeth Almquist and Shirley

Angrist found in their own study and from a review of
the literature that studies of career-oriented college
women showed a need for the influence provided by
adequate role models.

According to the investigators,

"Contact with role models is necessary in order to learn
how to perform according to the requirements of the
role."

18

Furthermore, Almquist and Angrist suggest:

Students do not become committed to a career
field without some positive relationships with
role models who display the skills, meet the
demands, and consciously enjoy the pleasures
to be obtained from the pursuit.
The most
readily available models for students are
first their professors, and second, persons
in a given o c c u p a t i o n . ^
The authors conclude:
For women, the importance of role model lies
in their explication of a lifestyle which
incorporates work with family life.
Occupa­
tional choice alone may be a temporary or
changeable matter for a girl, but commitment
to an adult life which includes work neces­
sitates some notion of what such a life may
be like. Adult career women, either as
working mothers, female teachers or acquain­
tances in a given occupation, can serve as
models of this lifestyle.20

18

Elizabeth M. Almquist and Shirley S. Angrist,
"Role Model Influence on College Women's Career Aspira­
tions,” in Athena Theodore, ed., The Professional Woman
(Cambridge, Mass.:
Schenkman, 1971), p. 506.
19Ibid.
20Ibid., p. 320.

15
Emphasizing the contribution of female faculty
to the teaching process and its effect on women
students, Rossi cautions institutions not to lose sight
of the teaching goal of the enterprise.

She writes:

We should show a willingness to value the
delayed impact on the younger generation of
women students that may flow from having
young married women on the teaching staff.
For college students to have such a woman as
a teacher and model may influence them to
persist in their own professional careers
rather than withdraw from them, and raise
their goals to more demanding positions than
they have considered for themselves.
To truly
value this mission and the potential influence
of women faculty upon women students, a uni­
versity must depart from the parochial concern
for immediate status pay-off in the form of
current faculty productivity by sharing a
society-wide goal of encouraging greater
social contributions from young women a
generation hence.21
There seems to be wide recognition that the goal
of equality of opportunity for academic women is more
likely to be accomplished through sustained attention to
the many facets of the problem than through any single
sweeping change.

This awareness, along with other

factors— women's groups on the various campuses and in
various departments, congressional hearings, HEW guide­
lines and the Women's Educational Equity Act— all tend
to account for the abundance of status studies of
academic women conducted throughout the college and
university environment.
21

Yet, there is a paucity of

Rossi, op. cit.,

p. 78

16
studies assessing the attitudes of those playing key
roles in this current social drama; that is, administra­
tors, faculty women, and women students.

In addition,

little evidence in the literature connecting enrollment
problems with the needs of faculty women indicates the
necessity for further scholarly effort, as is being
proposed in this current research, that has as its
objective to focus on the combined attitudes of those
whose interests are being increasingly affected by
current institutional problems.
Enrollment Trends
Faced with the problem of enrollment decline in
a climate of fiscal exigency, administrators in higher
educational institutions are forced to reexamine long­
term trends regarding recruitment, and staffing policies
and practices.

Evidence indicates that large annual

enrollment increases experienced in higher education
since the 1960s have ended with a predicted leveling
off in the 1980s.

Documentation by Equal Rights for

Women in Education and the Education Commission of the
States reveal that, in all institutions of higher educa­
tion, total enrollment almost doubled between 1964 and
1974, increasing from 5.3 million to 10.2 million.
However, the report predicts that, "by 1984, enrollment
is expected to grow only to 11.6 million or by 14 percent

17
over 1974."

22

There is no question that present and

future enrollment trends will directly affect college
and university faculty, particularly female faculty
members.
Authoritative studies indicate a high correla­
tion between enrollment increases and increases in
employment of college and university teachers.

In fact,

one can conclude that decreases in enrollment could mean
at worst retrenchment considerations as a possible
solution, or at best, curtailment in the hiring of
teachers.

23

In fact, projections by Cartter and Solomon

offer even more pessimistic predictions-

Their esti­

mates show that, in the fourteen-year period between
1980 and 1994, the number of individuals in the tradi­
tional college-age group will decline by 25 percent,
resulting in a 1.8 million drop in enrollment.

Accord­

ingly, total facutly size will face a 100,000 reduction.
They also predict that, in combination with falling
enrollments, the financial crisis of higher educational
institutions will force student/faculty ratios above the
traditional figure of 15:1, therefore, reducing faculty
demand even m o r e . ^
22

Equal Rights for Women Project, and Education
of the States, op. cit., p. 6.
23Ibid., p. 11.

18
Increased concern over enrollment decline in the
current period of financial stringency has stimulated
educational administrators to place emphasis on retrench­
ment as a possible solution.

How retrenchment has

affected faculty members in colleger and universities is
difficult to assess.

Needed information is often with­

held, national and statewide statistics are sparse, and
terminological differences among states make comparison
difficult.

Numerous practices, such as failing to fill

vacated positions or renew contracts of probationary or
non-tenured faculty, only serve to further exacerbate
the problem.

25

According to Equal Rights for Women in Education
and Education Commission of the States:
Efforts to determine who is bearing the
burden of retrenchment by surveying state
departments of education and state agencies
of higher education have been unsuccessful.
Most agencies are not breaking down retrench­
ment data by sex and race.
Such information
is politically and socially sensitive, and
many agencies may be avoiding a volatile
issue. State agencies relegate these
requests to the local school and to the
individual college or university.
However,
efforts to survey school districts and insti­
tutions of higher education on the numbers of
lay-offs due to financial cutbacks and/or the
race and sex characteristics of those jg
terminated also have been unsuccessful.

25

Equal Rights for Women Project, and Education
of the States, op. cit., p. 11.
26Ibid.

19
Although present trends are major concerns of
all faculty members in post-secondary institutions, they
are of considerable concern to female faculty because
enrollment and fiscal problems are taking place at a
time when women are attempting to achieve significant
breakthrough of institutional barriers impeding their
career development in the profession.

In this sense,

then, the current problems are untimely.

Suffice it to

say, academic women have reason for concern.

The common

criterion for determining personnel to be laid off is
length of service.

Despite HEW and Affirmative Action,

women's progress over the last thirty-five years in
making significant inroads into the system has not been
27
impressive.
Within the infrastructure, women are
concentrated in lower-status, lower-paying positions.
Not only has there been a history of slow progress up
the academic ladder, but also a pervasive pattern of
backward slides has frustrated women's efforts to achieve
equality in academe.

The higher the academic ladder she
28
climbs, the fewer female colleagues she encounters.
Even gains made by women over the years have not

been sustained.

A report from the University of Michigan

indicates that in 1971-1972, women represented 19 percent
27

Strommer, op. cit., p. 81.

28Ibid., p. 82.

20
of all faculty, but in 1964 they constituted 22 percent
of all faculty; in 1940 they were 2 8 percent;

in 1930

they made up 29 percent of all faculty; and in 1920 they
numbered 26 percent of all faculty.
report,

According to the

in over fifty years the percentage of faculty

women at all ranks is now 7 percent lower than it was in
1920 and 9 percent lower than it was in 1940.

Also, the

report revealed that "only 26 percent of women faculty,
as opposed to 57 percent of their male counterparts,
had tenure."29
The concept of retrenchment as a possible solu­
tion creates additional problems.

For instance,

the

issue of tenure, another formidable barrier, places
women in the academic job market at a disadvantage
compared with men.

A survey by the Carnegie Commission

on Higher Education reports that women are less likely
to have tenure than their male counterparts.

Usually

granted at the full professor and associate professor
level where academic women have comparatively weak
representation, tenure status has been a coveted prize
some faculty women find extremely elusive.

Tenure is

usually granted to academic men at an earlier age than
women, the survey indicates, and there is a tendency for
men to be more heavily represented in the more

21
competitive fields like natural sciences in which creativity usually peaks at an early age.

30

In a report by Wasserman, reasons for disparity
in tenure between the sexes are explained:
Since the proportion of women appointed
to tenure teaching positions at academic
institutions has been significantly lower
than the proportion who have earned doctor­
ates, the proportion of men appointed has
been correspondingly greater than that
expected from the number of doctoral degrees
awarded. As a result, some men have been
appointed and promoted who might not have
obtained their present positions had they
been forced to compete with the total pool
of doctorate recipients rather than with the
male sector only. Men have occupied a
preferred position {in the academic job
market) and it is not surprising that they
are reluctant to surrender it. This may
explain why efforts to eliminate inequities
and to encourage hiring and promotion with­
out regard to sex or race are now being
characterized as "discrimination against
white m a l e s . "31
Until recently, tenure and its provisions for
due process served as adequate protection for most
faculty, but recent events have made educational admin­
istrators more cautious and less flexible in this area.
For women, however, the question of tenure is more
30

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Oppor­
tunities for Women in Higher Education: Their Current
Participation, Prospects for the Future and Recommenda­
tion for Action (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1973), pp. 114-115.
31

Elga Wasserman, Arie Y. Lewis, and Linda H.
Bleiwers, eds., Women in Academia: Evolving Policies
Toward Equal Opportunities (New York: Praeger, 1975),
p. 2.

22
complicated.

In a recent survey by the American Council

on Education, researchers noted that such problems as
financial stringency, enrollment downturn, and fewer
faculty positions have motivated administrators to ques­
tion the concept of tenure.

While some institutions are

making tenure more difficult to obtain, others are
setting quotas, and still others are dropping it
altogether.

Cautious administrators are afraid that too

many tenured faculty members will reduce flexibility and
control.

The report maintains that "between 1968-69 and

1972-73, the proportion of the nation's tenured professors increased from 50 to 65 percent."

32

For faculty

women, then, the issue of tenure is somewhat ironic.
Women, who only recently have secured jobs in higher
education, will not be eligible for the security that
tenure implies if it is eliminated.

On the other hand,

tenure presently threatens the job security of women who
do not have i t . ^
The larger implications deriving out of the
present and anticipated future circumstances deserve

32

Elaine H. El-Khawas and W. Todd Furniss,
"Faculty Tenure and Contract Systems:
1972 and 1974,"
American Council on Education Survey, reported in "Fact
File,” Chronicle of Higher Education, February 18, 1976,
p. 9.
33
Equal Rights for Women in Education Project
and Education Commission of the States, op. cit.,
pp. 25-27.

23
more considerable attention.

Anticipated lean years

ahead demand educational planners to place high priority
on effective measures to counteract potential losses and
to improve the delivery system of post-secondary
institutions.

Parker warns, "The institutions that wait

until '1984,' however, to plan for that long heralded
data may find it already is or soon may be too late."

34

Institutional administrators hope to offset the
declining number of students and solve fiscal problems
through emergency methods.

However, a more forward

approach is needed that recognizes the changes in which
our major institutions are presently experiencing.
These dramatic changes require academicians to get a
handle on just what exactly is happening in education,
and the socially disastrous consequences that could
follow if administrators fail to see the opportunities
in which the current crisis can present.

Such an

apparent need is already being recognized by researchers
who are pointing out the larger implications of the
immediate problems.

For example, in the joint report by

Equal Rights for Women in Education Project and Educa­
tion Commission of the States, the fundamental point is
made that administrators can choose to view declining
enrollment as an opportunity.

34

In former years, the

Parker, op. cit., p. 11.

24
trend was expansion of teaching staffs in order to keep
up with increasing numbers of students.

According to

the report, overcrowding was the major problem requiring
building schools and educating more teachers.

In addi­

tion, the report points out, "Education required growing
proportions of state and local government budgets.

Now

with decreasing enrollments and existing fixed capital,
as well as available teaching staff,

it is perhaps

possible to increase the quality of education."

35

Along the same vein, Parker discusses the
promises for the future and points out another important
need:
For the first time in our history, we can
expect to have the faculty, the expertise, the
time, the facilities, and presumably, the
interest and concern to support programs for
significant student groups which, heretofore,
have not occupied prominent places in the
educational scene.
The big question is
whether or not we will have the finances and
social support necessary to fund and sponsor
the altered service functions that are pos­
sible and desirable in the 1980s.
In our
planning, if we undertake effectively to
demonstrate the need, we have to assume the
requisite finances and support will be
forthcoming.36
Proposed measures to deal effectively with
current crisis should consider methods to make more
effective use of human resources,
35

including both

.
.
.
Equal Rights for Women in Education Project
and Education Commission of the States, op. c i t . , p. 1.
36
Parker, op. cit., p. 11.

25
students and faculty.

Efforts on the part of individual

institutions to achieve more optimal use of resources,
thereby contributing to more productive use of resources
within the larger society, are supported by the
research.

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education

emphasizes conditions that must exist for higher educa­
tional institutions to accomplish their broad objectives
effectively, and recommends that institutions:
. . . must make wise decisions about the
allocation of their resources and the use of
their highly educated faculties, and they
must be prepared to achieve more rapid
adaptation to changing needs than has
generally been characteristic of higher
education in the past. '
The potentialities for survival and even
progress in higher educational institutions rest on the
emphasis these institutions are willing to place on the
three essential points recommended by the Commission—
that is, wise decisions as to (a) allocation of
resources,

(b) use of faculty, and (c) adaptation to

changing needs.

In this sense, then, the increasing

quest of female faculty members to gain equal participa­
tion at all levels of post-secondary institutions is
quite timely.

It serves an economic need, for not only

does it have the potential for increasing the quality of
education, but also it has the inherent possibilities of
37

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, op.
cit., p. 47.

26
being instrumental in the overall restructuring of one
of society's major institutions, while, at the same
time, of making optimal use of the human resources.
Through recruitment and retention of the vast
reservoir of potential women students, institutions of
higher education must themselves undergo a process of
organizational restructuring by altering and reducing
institutional barriers to the educational and career
goals of female students.

Success in this effort could

ultimately depend on the willingness of institutions to
fully employ the assistance and cooperation of most
faculty women.

It must be recognized at this point that,

in the sense that not all male faculty are insensitive
to the needs of women students, not all female faculty
are sensitive to such needs.

Adequate utilization of

this valuable resource, however, will require reexamina­
tion of the present status of faculty women for the pur­
pose of identifying overt and covert discriminatory
practices that could prevent faculty women from providing
adequate resources and services to women students.
This need is stressed in the literature and
summarized by Freeman who emphasizes how universities
manage at one and the same time to incorporate an
egalitarian philosophy with an authoritarian structure:

27
Women students are, theoretically at least,
told they are the intellectual equals of men,
yet, they observe the lack of women among
their teachers and disproportionate staff
positions.38
Along the same line, Gold asserts that women in
high level careers have the potential to be available as
role models, but students may "observe the rarity of the
39
phenomena and infer the conditions which keep it so."
Only a brief enumeration of facts is necessary
to arrive at the conclusion that formidable barriers
exist to prevent women from pursuing an education in
post-secondary institutions.

Factors in the structure

and processes at all levels, as well as in the attitudes
of both staff and students, operate to mitigate against
females attempting to pursue an education in post­
secondary institutions.
Institutional change is a multi-variate process.
Numerous forces have been successful in identifying
factors in institutions that are major obstacles to the
educational goals of women students and career goals of
female faculty.

However,

some inroads have been made in

overhauling institutional practices incorporated in

38

Jo Freeman, "The Revolution is Happening in
Our Minds," College and University Business 48 (February
1970):68-69.
39
Sona Gold, "Work and Leisure Models:
Some
Implications for Women's Higher Education," unpublished
paper, January 1968, p. 21.

formal policies operating to impede educational goals of
women students and career goals of women faculty.

Moti­

vated by the women's movement, the intervention of the
federal government and the courts, collected data and
new research findings, and economic interests of all
faculty and staff in academe, including males, women
have made this issue one of the most pervasive in the
current polemics over educational needs.

Progress,

albeit limited, has been made in those areas identified
by Westervelt as barriers to the status of women stu­
dents.

In addition, the imposition of external forces

are pressuring institutions to take a hard look at
barriers to the status of women faculty identified in
the literature as:

recruitment and hiring practices,

promotion and tenure, salary and rank differentials,
administrative positions, and a host of other practices
such as maternity leave, an equivalent to the G.I. Bill
for women,

40

day care centers, and anti-nepotism

policies and practices.
Two considerations must be offered at this
point.

First of all, factors other than those found in

40The AFT has proposed a new comprehensive
program entitled Educare.
One of the components calls
for retraining and job upgrading under the proposal for
life-long education. Another component calls for more
thorough teacher training. Both components offer a
variety of public school opportunities heretofore avail­
able only to veterans covered by the G.I. Bill of Rights.

29
formal policies also operate as barriers to the educa­
tional and career goals of women.

The interaction

between staff and students is an important factor in
either facilitating or impeding the progress of women
students.

Favorable or unfavorable outcomes of such

interactions largely depend on individual attitudes.
Commenting on this factor, Westervelt stresses that
obvious barriers to women students are faculty and staff
attitudes, not only toward women as students, but also
toward their roles as well.

These attitudes, that

constitute serious impediments to the development of
women students, are attributed, in part, to the sex
distribution of faculty and staff.

Westervelt iden­

tifies a variety of negative attitudes toward women
students including:
Lack of active encouragement and support,
sex discrimination in job placement before and
after graduation, overt and covert expression
of sex stereotypes and masculine expectations
for women's roles and behaviors, absence of
female role models among faculty and admin­
istrators, and effects of antinepotism rules
on sex distribution of faculty and on
expectations of women students.41
The second factor that requires immediate
consideration is recognition that, while acceptance of
the fact that discriminatory practices operate as
barriers to the progress of women at all levels of

^Hfestervelt, op. cit., pp. 31-37.

30
academe, such factors do not necessarily lead to change.
Witness the plight of other oppressed and disadvantaged
groups in our society:

the North American Indian, the

colonial black, the pre-industrial child.

However, some

few sub-groups who eventually attain their goals usually
do so by successfully convincing others that changes
generated by one sub-group can be beneficial to others
both in and outside the sub-group.

A few examples

should suffice to support this point.

Slavery ended for

blacks out of political and economic interests more so
than moral imperatives.

Child labor regulations came as

a result of unions' recognition that continuation of
such practices increasingly depressed the wages of
adult workers.

As noted earlier, women were admitted

into colleges and universities when masculine enrollment
dropped, threatening closure of some schools.

42

Both the moral imperative and economic necessity
in the 1980s can be met as administrators recognize the
strategic position of female faculty in the process of
vigorous recruitment and retention of the vast potential
pool of women resources.

The function of faculty women

in this process can be enormous:

faculty women can

monitor admission practices for women students, they can
42

This concept is based on the ideas of Jeffrey
S. Kaiser, "Anatomy of an Evolution:
Women in Educa­
tional Administration," University College Quarterly,
March 1979, p. 16.

31
intervene in value and attitudinal conflicts between
male and female students and staff, they have the poten­
tial for understanding problems peculiar to women
students, they can provide needed encouragement and
empathy and they can assist women students in the
management of the conflict between career and family
interests.

In fact, the mere presence of the female

faculty member can be destructive to most prevailing
myths of the so-called woman's place in our society.
Above all, the most significant consideration
is the recognition that in order for female faculty to
be effective in ameliorating the limited educational
status of women, the improvement of their own status is
necessary.

The status of faculty women, and their

attitudes and perceptions of their status present
perhaps the most challenging problem facing educational
institutions in the United States today.

While the

major concern of faculty women is the problem of
equality of access of professional opportunities, within
this broad context is a host of related problems, not
only complex solely in their educational dimensions,
but also vastly complicated by being intimately bound to
the myriad aspects of the total society and culture.

It

is essential that such barriers continue to be attacked
rigorously and affirmatively at each institution and in
each department.

32
The point that concerns us here, and the funda­
mental problem recognized by this current research, is
the nature of the contribution of faculty women in the
recruitment and retention of female resources, and the
perceptions and attitudes toward structural barriers
imposed by institutions on female faculty that could
impede or facilitate this important function.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was:

(1) to survey

opinions and attitudes of selected faculty women toward
other faculty women, and (2) to survey opinions and
attitudes of selected faculty men toward faculty women.
The study was designed to determine agreement and/or
discrepancies among the survey population with regard to
specific issues and operational areas affecting profes­
sional career opportunities of faculty women in higher
education.
Questions to be Answered
1.

Do the expressed opinions and attitudes of

faculty women indicate that opportunities are equal for
faculty women with regard to employment, advancement,
job mobility, personality characteristics, teaching
effectiveness, production of research and other
scholarly writing, contributions to profession.

33
acceptance by associates, use of full potential, job
satisfaction, and alternative work patterns?
2.

Do the expressed opinions and attitudes of

faculty men indicate that opportunities are equal?
3.

Do the expressed opinions and attitudes of

all faculty members of selected departments of Univer­
sity College indicate that opportunities are equal?
4.

Do the expressed opinions and attitudes of

all faculty members in selected departments of the
College of Business indicate that opportunities are
equal?
Significance of the Study
The major significance of the study lies in
information it contributes to an appraisal of the
feasibility of alleviating enrollment problems through
the specific measures of recruitment and retention of
women students and through involvement of faculty women
in this process.
If administrators are generally willing to
consider expanding recruitment efforts to include more
women students, and if they are willing to utilize women
faculty in this process, measures can be instituted to
alleviate barriers to women at all institutional levels
that could impede the progress of this process.

If it

appears that such a commitment could be beneficial to

34
the institution, faculty women, and women students,
programs could be instituted to recruit and retain more
women students.

The characteristics of these programs

could be based on information obtained from authorita­
tive sources regarding factors that impede and facili­
tate women in their educational and career development.
If administrators are unwilling to institute
measures for the recruitment and retention of women
students, and utilize faculty women in this process,
objections by administrators and reasons offered could
be objectively validated or refuted.

If valid reasons

appear, then faculty women will have to find other
options to encouraging institutions to recognize
barriers to women's educational and career goals.

If

reasons presented by administrators are invalid, such
reasons could provide valuable information to adminis­
trators, faculty women, and women students interested
in pursuing degrees in institutions of higher education.
This research could be valuable in yet another
area recognized as an important need.

The portion of

this study which concerns itself with the relationship
between attitudes of faculty women and faculty men
toward faculty women has further implications.

The

findings from this study could serve as a basis for more
intensive research comparing the nature and extent of

35
the influence of faculty attitudes and behavior against
actual behavior and performance of faculty women.
The study also has implications regarding
factors that hinder or facilitate faculty women's pro­
gress in academe.

Although status studies have been

conducted on most campuses in compliance with HEW and
affirmative action, information is needed concerning the
attitudes and feelings of those involved in the process.
How women perceive their status and feel about their
position on campuses and in departments have much to do
with job satisfaction and quality of work performed.
Def intion of Terms
The following major terms will be used through­
out the study and are defined to insure clarity and
continuity for the reader:
Allocation of resources.

The opportunity of

available productive agents, human and non-human, among
educational institutions engaged in rendering services
to society.
Autonomy.
the self.

The maintenance of the integrity of

In successful and wholesome socialization,

the struggle between the child's wishes and persistent
motives results in the individual's developing selfcontrol and an increasing sense of self-esteem which in

36
turn generates an abiding sense of autonomy in the
person.
Anti-nepotism.

Policies and practices by

educational institutions that prevent exclusion of rela­
tives or same family members from working in the same
institutions or departments.
Attitude.

An orientation toward or away from

some object, concept, or situation; a readiness to
respond in a predetermined manner to the object, con­
cept, or situation.
Administrator.

An individual who has formal

responsibilities for formulating the policies of the
institution through the process of implementing the
functional activities of planning, organizing, direct­
ing, coordinating, and controlling.
Career.

A synonym for occupation or profession

carrying, usually, the implication of a high degree of
job stability.
Conflict.

A struggle over values and claims to

scarce status, power, and resources.
Discrimination.

A process or form of social

control which serves to maintain social distance between
two or more categories or groups by means of a set of
practices more or less institutionalized and rational­
ized.

The practices employed involve the arbitrary

attribution of inferiority on grounds which have little

37
to do with the actual behavior of those discriminated
against, and are frequently in conflict with accepted
ideas of justice and fairness.
Double standard.

Practices that give one group

priveleges and another prohibitions around the same
issues; e.g., males may have sexual freedom, but females
may not.
Electra complex.

The incestuous desire of the

daughter for sexual relations with her father.
Equality.

An "ideal" arrangement of statuses

and rights, the moral value of which derives from the
extent to which (and the same sense in which) what is
common to all persons is not more importantly but
infinitely more important than the accidents by which
people differ.
Feminine.

The role or behavior accepted by a

culture for the female.
Fear of success.

The motive to avoid success is

a stable characteristic of the personality acquired
early in life in conjunction with sex-role standards.
It is conceived as a disposition (a) to feel uncomfort­
able when successful in competitive achievement situa­
tions because such behavior is inconsistent with one's
femininity (an internal standard), and (b) to expect or
become concerned about social rejection following suc­
cess in such situations.

38
Higher education.

Study pursued in a four-year

public or private institution leading to a baccalaureate,
graduate, advanced graduate or professional degree.
Institution.

A public or private baccalaureate

college or university considered to have sufficient
independence for classification as a separate
institution.
Ideology.

A pattern of beliefs and concepts

(both faculty and normative) which purport to explain
complex social phenomena with a view to directing and
simplifying socio-political choices facing individuals
and groups.
Justice.

Used in two senses:

(a) giving every

person her/his due, and (b) the setting right of wrong
either by compensating the victim of wrong or by
punishing the doer of it.
Masculine.

The role or behavior accepted by the

culture for the male.
Myth.

The whole word picture held by a social

group, and the value system anchored in that picture.
Prejudice.

An attitude that is firmly fixed,

not open to free and rational discussion, and resistant
to change.
Policy.

A course of action or intended course

of action conceived and deliberately adopted, after a

39
review of possible alternatives, and pursued or intended
to be pursued.
Post-secondary education.

Any instruction,

research, public service, or other learning opportunity
offered to persons who have completed their secondary
education or who are beyond the compulsory secondary
school attendance age (age 16) and who are participating
in an organized educational program of learning experi­
ence administered by other than schools whose primary
role is elementary and secondary education.
Role model.

Usually an individual rather than a

group, the role model demonstrates for the individual
how something is done in the technical sense.
model is concerned with the "how" question.

The role
The essen­

tial quality of the role model is that she/he possesses
skills and displays techniques which the actor lacks (or
thinks she/he lacks) and from whom, by observation and
comparison with her/his own performance, the actor can
learn.
Role.

By analogy with the actor's role, the

kind of behavior expected of an individual because her/
his place within social arrangements; e.g., the female
role, the male role, the student's role, the teacher's
role.

Any one person fulfills or adopts numerous roles

on varied occasions.

40
Retrenchment.

The practice by institutions of

laying off, or cutting back, on staff.
Scapegoating.

To blame a person or object for

the mistake of others.
Sex role.

The behavioral patterns, attitudes

and characteristics of members of one sex.
Social problem.

A situation affecting a signif­

icant number of people that is believed by them and/or
by a significant number of others in the society to be
a source of difficulty or unhappiness, and one that is
capable of amelioration.
Status.

Denotes position in a social system

involving reciprocal expectation of action with respect
to occupants of other positions in the same structure.
Stereotype.

An inflexible, rigid, fixed

conception that may be only partially true.
Structural barriers.

Organizational and insti­

tutional patterns, practices, rules, and norms which
effectively hinder or halt women in their efforts to
enter, remain, or advance in institutions of higher
education.
Value.
or desire.

Denotes any object of any need, attitude

41
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
The principle limitation of the study is that it
is concerned only with the attitudes of selected faculty
men and selected faculty women at Michigan State Univer­
sity.

Further, the study is limited to the degree to

which the survey has identified and framed the signif­
icant issues raised in the literature on this subject.
Additionally, the study is limited by the reliability of
the survey instrument and the method of question scaling
and coding employed for purposes of descriptive analy­
sis.

The study is also limited by the fact that, while

the full equality of women is given homage everywhere,
few individuals in higher education would have the
temerity to avow openly, at least, that women should not
have equal treatment with men.

Another limitation of

the study is its focus on middle-class, predominantly
white females.

Any instrument constructed for measuring

attitudes associated with such a volatile issue as the
one under present examination has little resistance to
distortion by social desirability of response.
Delimitations
This study was limited to faculty members who
were employed in selected departments at Michigan State
University during the academic year 1977-78.

The

42
population of this study was taken from the Department of
American Thought and Language of University College, and
the following departments in the College of Business:
Business Law and Office Education, Management, Hotel and
Restaurant Management, Marketing and Transportation, and
Economics.
Design
To assess the attitudes of women faculty, and men
faculty at Michigan State University, a survey question­
naire was mailed to the study population.

The study

population consists of a selected group of women faculty
members (N = 60), and a selected group of men faculty
members (N = 164) from the Department of American Thought
and Language of University College and five departments
in the College of Business, including Business Law and
Office Education, Management, Hotel and Restaurant
Management, Marketing and Transportation, and Economics.
The survey instrument, with a cover letter
of introduction was mailed to the study population
(N = 224) requesting the participation of the men
faculty and women faculty in the study.

Their indi­

vidual responses remain confidential, as indicated
in the cover letter and on the survey instrument.
Numerical coding of each envelope containing the survey
instrument was mailed to the study population,

43
permitting identification for follow-up requests of
those who fail to respond within three weeks from the
date of mailing.

Telephone calls will be used as a

final measure to those recipients of the survey instru­
ment who will not have responded to the original request
or to the written follow-up request to personally ask
for their assistance in complying with the survey
request.
The assessment of attitudes of women faculty and
men faculty in regard to institutional barriers to
women at Michigan State University will be based upon
questions in the survey instrument which will be
developed from issues and criteria defined by the
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, unpublished
dissertations,

information provided by research con­

ducted in the study area, and by nationally recognized
experts in the field of higher education, with regard to
barriers to women's participation in post-secondary
education as being central to understanding the signif­
icant concerns in the study area.
Analysis of survey data in the study will be
reported in descriptive and summary statistical formats
with accompanying narrative.

44
Organization of the Study and
Overview of Chapters
The study will be reported in five chapters.
Chapter 1 will include the introduction, the statement
of the problem, the focus of the problem, the signif­
icance of the study, the purposes of the study, the
limitations and delimitations of the study, the sources
of data and procedures, and a statement of the organiza­
tion of the study.
Chapter 2 will include a review of the litera­
ture related to the study.
Chapter 3 will contain the procedure of the
study, the instrument of the study, acquisition of the
data, and the analysis of the results of the survey of
an assessment of the attitudes of faculty women and
faculty men toward faculty women.
Chapter 4 will include a comparative analysis of
the results of the survey assessing the attitudes of
faculty women and faculty men on institutional barriers
to faculty women at Michigan State University, and also
will include an analysis of continuities and discon­
tinuities of attitudes within the infrastructure of the
university.
Chapter 5 will contain a summary of the entire
study followed by conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE
Extent and Magnitude of the Problem
Undergoing change are numerous of the country's
long-term values affecting such major institutional
structures as our colleges and universities.

Such

changes# facilitative of more equity for all members of
the post-secondary education society# particularly
provide possibilities of more equitable opportunities
for faculty women.

In the current polemics over higher

educational problems, none is so pervasive as the
concept of equal educational and professional opportuni­
ties for women.

It is not a new issue.

It was a major

ingredient in the drive calling for women's access into
the colleges and universities in the nineteenth century.
They achieved the goals of gaining acceptance into the
country's established colleges and universities, and of
establishing outstanding colleges of their own.

Then as

now, it was mostly economic necessity that turned the
tide for women.
In the 1960s and 197 0s, motivated by the new
feminists and the new women's movement, the dramatic
entree of the federal government and the courts, along
45

with at least two decades of collected data and research
findings, and compelling economic interests of a large
proportion of faculty members in higher education, the
issue of equality of professional opportunity for women
faculty has become central, resulting in the identifica­
tion of both the activities and the writing aimed at
defining the status of academic women and attitudes of
both men and women faculty toward women in academe.
Despite cries of academic freedom and such major prob­
lems facing higher education today as the allocation of
jobs in an economically static work organization,
charges of discrimination against women in higher educa­
tional institutions are being made both formally and
informally.

Institutional methods of recruiting, hiring,

upgrading, promoting, discharging and retiring women
faculty are all under public scrutiny and open to
examination.

This review of the literature will cover

three significant areas:

An Historical Overview of

Women Faculty in Institutions of Higher Education,
Present Trends in the Equality of Professional Oppor­
tunities for Academic Women and Related Literature.
An Historical Overview of Women Faculty
in Institutions of Higher Education
Early Significant Trends
Although, as Astin comments, a definitive
history of the growth and development of faculty women

47
in academe has yet to be written,1 the literature
reveals that a few authors have attempted to trace
significant trends in women's thrust to attain equality
of professional opportunities in institutions of higher
learning.

The difficulty of such an ordeal becomes

increasingly apparent as one begins a thorough examina­
tion of the literature.

Pollard reminds us that:

Determining just when and where women
first entered the college teaching profession
is a difficult task.
It is reasonable to
assume, however, that few if any women
entered college teaching before the first
women had been educated in institutions of
higher education or before a demand was
created for women as teachers in collegiate
institutions.^
In America, there have been significant factors
both stimulating and impeding the progress of women in
achieving equality of educational and professional
opportunities.

While barriers to women's educational

growth have been, to a large extent, but not strictly
limited to ideological arguments, factors favorable to
promoting the cause of the women's movement to gain
equal treatment in academe have been identified as
mostly economic, social, and political.

Foreign

Helen S. Astin and Werner Z. Hirsch, eds., The
Higher Education of Women: Essays in Honor of Rosemary
Park (New York: Praeger, 1978), p. 113.
2
Lucille A. Pollard, Women on College and
University Faculties (New York! Arno Press, 1977),
p. 59.

48
antecedents largely determined colonial woman's "proper
sphere" in the society.

One author, John Demos,

informs us that in the seventeenth century, male domi­
nance was generally an accepted principle all over the
western world.3

Unfortunately, such beliefs were not

limited to a particular period of American history.

The

literature reveals that, then as in the present, the
prevailing attitude throughout this country's history
determining, to a large extent, the nexus between women
and men has been white male superiority and female
subordination.

Demos reminds us of the fundamental

Puritan sentiment on this matter expressed by Milton in
a famous line in Paradise Lost;
for God in him."

4

"He for God only, she

Consequently, the purposes of early

educational systems set up in America were not humani­
tarian oriented, but were designed primarily to maintain
European imported class and sex distinctions, which is
what probably led Churgin to conclude that education for
women was initially discounted in this country.

5

As a

result, the dominant characteristic of early woman's
3
John Demos, "The Structure of the Household,"
in Gary B. Nash, ed.. The Private Side of American
History (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, T979),
p"! 53.
^Ibid.
5
Jonah R. Churgin, The New Woman and the Old
Academe:
Sexism and Higher Education (New York:
Libra,
1978), p. 81.

49
education was its variable, and somewhat meager,
quantity.
Later periods reveal that women's efforts
toward educational and professional equality were met
with unsuccessful, but somewhat disconcerting, attempts
to thwart their goals.

At each stage that women made

significant gains, they met resistance, mostly ideo­
logical, resulting in a pattern of uneven and halting
development.

Sociologist Saul Feldman sums up attitudes

opposing women and concludes that the "rash of objec­
tions" surrounding the idea of women's education was one
of the major reasons for its slow development.6

The

underlying theme of almost all the arguments against
women's education was that it defeminized them.

7

Pollard describes efforts of women to counteract argu­
ments against female education:
Higher education for the young ladies in
the United States began slowly and meagerly
in the 1800s as the outgrowth of the dreams
and struggles of a few dedicated and vision­
ary men and women.
As the earlier experi­
ence with the young girls' mental capabili­
ties in the academies and grammar schools
had overcome some of the prevailing beliefs

Saul D. Feldman, Escape From the Doll's House:
Women in Graduate and Professional Education (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1974), pp. 21-22.
7 Ibid.

50
detrimental to their education, the doors of
the higher seminaries of learning were
unlocked for them.®
Simultaneous with the subtle and not so subtle opposi­
tion to women's education were powerful forces working
to insure increased opportunities for them.
Economic, social, and political considerations
stimulated the cause of women's educational and career
development.

In many cases, economic incentives stimu­

lated early education of girls, who oftentimes attended
school at no additional cost during the summers or in
the evenings when the boys were absent; later, the girls
were hired to teach in the dame schools, the common
schools and the secondary schools at salaries far below
those of their male counterparts.

The rise of the

coeducational movement was also motivated primarily by
economics.

For example, some colleges were able to

remain open by admitting women during crisis periods,
such as:

the Civil War, periods of depressions, and
9

World Wars I and II.

Further incentives were based on

an admixture of social and economic factors.

Signif­

icant forces contributing to women's advancement in
educational and professional opportunities include:
the common school movement, the growth of the public
Q

Pollard, op. cit., p. 59.
9
Mabel Newcomer, A Century of Higher Education
for American Women (New York:Harper, 1959), p. 17.

51
school system described by Newcomer as probably the
most significant single factor in women's higher educa­
tion prior to the Civil War"^; the pre-Civil War
colleges for women; the prestigious women's colleges,
which, as Baker argues, "led the way in women's intel­
lectual emancipation,"^ and Churgin depicts as "the
major impetus to women's education"

12

; and the coeduca­

tional movement.
The role played by political factors was far
from insignificant.

The Morrill Act of 1862, which

stimulated the growth of state universities, also
advanced educational opportunities for women.

As these

land-grant colleges developed, taxpayers demanded admit13
tance of their daughters as well as thexr sons.
The
Smith-Level Act of 1914 supported agricultural and home
economics instruction, and the National Defense Education
Act of 1948 supported teacher training programs in

10Ibid., p. 14.
1^Liva Baker, I'm Radcliffel Fly Mel The Seven
Sisters and the Failure of Women's Education (New York:
McMillan, 1976), p. 2.
12
13

Churgin, op. cit., p. 83.
Newcomer, op. cit., p. 36.

52
foreign language, science, guidance, and audio-visual
methods.

14
Although it is not within the scope of this

study to review in great detail early prejudice against
higher education for women or all the factors that
played a significant role in their struggle for equal
educational and other opportunities, however, an explora­
tion seems necessary for at least two reasons:

the

importance of attaining some precision in our under­
standing of these forces operating both for and against
the women's educational movement is especially important
as they form a baseline against which to measure change
in the 1960s and 1970s.

Also, long and heated debates

over these issues not only held back the movement, but
also had much to do with the direction that it took.
Opposition to Equal Educational and
Professional Opportunities for
Women
Early Attitudes
Originally derived from social and educational
patterns of ancient Greeks, perpetuated through the
traditions and customs that eventually evolved into old
English common law, maintained through the medieval
14

R. Freeman Butts, "Search for Freedom:
The
Story of American Education," in Stan Dropkin et a l . ,
Contemporary American Education: An Anthology of
Issues, Problems, Challenges (Toronto: MacMillan, 1969),
p. 104.

53
universities by priestly faculty members and imported to
American by the earliest immigrants with essentially
conservative social theories, a complex set of attitudes
and line of argument permeated colonial culture which
stressed the social and intellectual limitations of
women.

Historian Mary Beth Norton points out that:

The prevailing trend was the fact that
many women had been conscripted into bourgeois
culture, accepting the notion that a woman's
place was in the home.
The roles of wife and
mother enhanced, but the wider world of busi­
ness, politics, and public affairs remained in
another sphere.
This internalized "cult of
domesticity" which is usually associated with
the nineteenth century, permeated colonial
culture.15
When in 1776 Abigail Adams asked her husband to
"Remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable
than your ancestors.
if they could.

Remember all men would by tyrants

If particular care and attention is not

paid to the ladies, w e are determined to ferment a
rebellion . .

reportedly John chuckled; the Conti­

nental Congress ignored her.**5 Mrs. Adams with a selfacguired education extraordinary for colonial America,
when most wives of distinguished men still signed their

Mary Beth Norton, "Eighteenth-Century American
Women in Peace and War," in Gary B. Nash, ed., The
Private Side of American History (New York:
Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1979), p. SO 1 .

names with a cross,

17

must have known that the reaction

of her husband and the body politic was not unusual as
one of the prevailing underlying reasons for the insis­
tent agitation against early attempts of American women
to achieve equal educational and professional opportun­
ity was deeply grounded in prejudice existing in the
18
traditional ideologies of the period.
This conflict
in the provision of equal opportunities to colonial
women reflected a conflict in values and attitudes.

At

the heart of the issue, then as now, have been the
restrictive nature of sex roles, and the imposition of
arbitrary cultural standards of femininity and mascu­
linity and their inhibitions of the natural development
of people.

Although all people have been adversely

affected, to some extent, women have been more intensely
affected because they have had their lives somewhat
circumscribed to fit within what Demos describes as
"this general framework of masculine superiority."

19

The history of women's educational and profes­
sional development depicts a movement that progressed,
albeit slowly and haltingly.

Feldman attributes one

important reason for such development to various

*7Baker, op. cit., p. 2.
18Ibid.
19

Demos, op. cit., p. 54.

55
anti-feminine objections.

20

Howe proposes that the

antecedents of such objections can be traced to early
discussions of such intellects as Aristotle and Milton.
Howe emphasizes that reading Aristotle on
a way of finding out
from a teacher.

22

21

the subject is

how little a student may learn

She provides us with a key statement

from the Politics:
We may thus concludes that it is a general
law that there should be naturally ruling
elements and elements naturally rules . . . .
The rule of freeman over the slave is
one kind
of rule; that of the male over the female
another . . . .
The slave is entirely without
the faculty of deliberation; the female indeed
possesses it, but in a form which remains
inconclusive . . . .
It is thus clear that
while moral goodness is a quality of all the
persons mentioned, the fact still remains that
temperance— and similary fortitude and
justice— are not, as Socrates held, the same
in a woman as they are in a m a n . 23
Thus, as Howe concludes, for Aristotle women should not
be educated, or, if viewed categorically as societal
equivalence to a slave, then she should be given only
that amount of education that will render her useful to
males, her masters.

Thus, education is controlled

through the defining of capability or what Howe defines
2®Feldman, op. cit., p. 21.
21
Florence Howe, "The Education of Women," in
Judith Stacey et a l . , eds., And Jill Came Tumbling
After (New York:
Dell, 1974)7 p7 64-?5.
22Ibid., p. 66.
23Ibid.

56
as "role-definition,"

24

and she argues that:

"Aristotle's voice has prevailed.

He and the early

church fathers settled the noneducation of women for
25
nearly two thousand years."
Interpreting Milton's ideas on the subject,
Howe finds that his voice illustrates the perpetuation
of woman's subordinate status; however, he is more
subtle than Aristotle.

Milton's ideas on women's

education, as interpreted by Howe, are based on the
belief that women can be taught, but not to any great
extent and only under careful considerations.

26

They

need to be constantly supervised in order to avoid
trouble.

Milton's main idea is hierarchy, reports
If

Howe, who goes on to explain that for him,

Woman is

subordinate in status, inferior in intellect, and even
27
less reliable than man in matters of the heart."
In 1907, M. Carey Thomas, sharing her childhood
experiences, admits that she "read Milton with rage and
28
indignation."
"Even as a child," confesses Miss

24Ibid.
25Ibid.
26Ibid., p. 67.
27Ibid.
28
M. Carey Thomas, "Present Tendencies in
Women's College and University Education," Educational
Review, January 1908, p. 65.

57
Thomas,

"I knew him for the woman hater he was."

29

Miss

Thomas also notes that, when she was old enough, she
read the Bible "entirely through with passionate eager­
ness because I had heard it said that it proved that
women were inferior to m e n . " ^

She particularly

remembered that the account of Adam and Eve saddened her
because she felt that Eve's curse might imperil girls'
31
opportunity to go to college.
Prior to the Civil War, the chief role ascribed
to women was motherhood;

therefore, for colonial women

marriage was their principal life's goal.

Providing us

with insights as to the significant role of the
colonial family, Demos suggests that:
For the Puritan settlers of New England,
family relationships were of the utmost
importance . . . .
For all but a handful of
settlers, trappers, Indian traders, or "rene­
gades" from "civilian"— family ties provided
the framework of life . . . .
Early New
Englanders saw the family as the basic
building block in erecting a regenerated
godly community.
That is why in early New
England all single persons were required to
live within a family; bachelor living was
prohibited because no individual, it was
thought, was safe from anarchic impulses if
he or she lived outside a family f o l d . 32

29Ibid.
30Ibid.
31
Demos, op. cit., p. 52.
32
J Ibid.

58
Popular arguments not only determined women's
relative position in society, but also her relative
position in the family.

Summarizing the married woman's

overall valuation resulting from sex differentiation,
Goodsell maintains that her legal status was a nullity,
her economic position markedly inferior, and the scope
and extent of her education limited.

33

In sum, her

total status was determined by English tradition.
Accordingly, most married women were without the benefit
of legal status.

They could not make a will, enter

into a contract, or bring suit for the protection of
their interests.

Such rights were vested in their

husbands, who also had sole rights of guardianships of
the children.

In economic matters, at marriage early

colonial women surrendered all right to the administra­
tion of her property, both real and personal,
husbands'

into their

hands who were privileged to enjoy such income

without having to give an account of their stewardships.

34

In terms of education,

some early eighteenth

century American women received only that which was
necessary to maintain their chief occupation which
entailed, according to Goodsell,

33

"bearing a 'quiver full'

Willystine Goodsell, Pioneers of Women's
Education in the United States (New York:
McGraw Hill,
1931), p. 2.

59
of children, and carrying on a variety of domestic
duties."

35

The home, then, was a training school in

which mothers instructed daughters in the domestic
occupations destined for them.

Woody provides Noah

Webster's definition of a good education for women in
1790, as that which renders them "correct in their
manners, respectable in their families, and agreeable
36
in society."
Webster argues:
. . . that education is always wrong which
raises a woman above the duties of her sta­
tion . . . .
Some arithmetic is necessary
for every lady and geography should never
be neglected.^7
But he was imposing the limitation of only a primary
education for women.

In his history of The American

College and University, Rudolph depicts the colonial
view of the status of women as:
. . . simply that she was intellectually
inferior— incapable, merely by reason of
being— a woman of great thoughts.
Her
functions were not worth training.
Her
place was in the home, where man had
,g
assigned her a number of useful functions.

35Ibid.
36
Thomas Woody, A History of Women's Education
in the United States (New York:
Octagon, 1966), p. 2 8 .
37Ibid.
38
Frederick Rudolph, The American College and
University — A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1962).

60
Prior to the nineteenth century/ although the
prevailing attitude was that formal schooling for girls
was not generally accepted, and the colonial style of
thinking was that the proper sphere of women was in the
home,

it is ironic that, along with individual initia­

tive and favorable circumstances, family cooperation was
an important factor in the provision of early educational
39
and professional opportunities for women.
Tracing the
trends in the growth and development of women's early
efforts that eventually led to their domination of
teaching positions in the elementary and secondary
schools, Newcomer explains that a variety of patterns
was evident.

For example, Sara Joseph Hale of G o d e y 's

L a d y 1s Book was tutored by her brother of Dartmouth,
Emma Willard's sister; Almira Phelps studied with her
brother-in-law's nephew who was attending Middleburg;
Mary Lyon studied science in the home of Professor
Hitchcock; and Elizabeth Cady Stanton studied Greek with
the local minister.

40

Newcomer notes that these early

efforts had important significance in the growth and
development of women's education.

Not only did they

provide evidence of the learning capabilities of women,
but also they fostered the growth of leaders in the

39

Newcomer, op. cit., p. 9.

40Newcomer, op. cit., pp. 8-9.

»

61
early nineteenth century who were to play an important
role in the spread of the movement for secondary educa­
tion, perhaps the most significant movement in the
spread of higher educational and professional opportunities for women.

41

For example. Call indicates that by

the 1870s women had already proved themselves to be
capable teachers in the dame schools.

The common

school movement created a demand for teachers which men
failed to meet.

By the early nineteenth century women
42
dominated teaching positions.
According to Newcomer,
beginning early in the nineteenth century, women were
employed in the public school system.

During the Civil

War, the trend was further stimulated by the absence of
men and, by 197 0, three out of four teachers were
43
women.
Institutions of Higher
Education
Upon inquiry, one finds that further examination
of the growth, development, and trends leading to
college teaching as a profession for women reveals that
at almost every point, significant gains made by women

Ibid.
42

Annie Payson Call, "The Greatest Need of
College Girls," Atlantic Monthly, January 1882, pp. 102109.
43Ibid.

62
were met with resistance.

All along the line from

grade school up through high school into seminaries,
colleges and universities what Feldman calls the rash of
objections to the idea of women's education was a con­
stant pull upon their forward progress.

The early

contention of the opposition had been that the proper
sphere of women was in the home.

Regardless of this

contention, however, the social demand in the case of
needed teachers to command the overpopulated elementary
and secondary schools had become so strong that the
advantages of adjustment to a practical social need was
accepted in preference to the advantages of a type of
ideological consistency.

As Losee emphasizes:

"At the

time of the Civil War, more chance was forcefully given
to women.

They were needed to take the places of the

men who were called to fight and educating them became
a necessity."

45

The necessity of educating women, then, was
recognized— up to a point.

The point at which resis­

tance intensified was at the college level.

Conse­

quently, women's next move was to breach the walls of
the institutions of higher learning and create the
possibility to freely realize their potential for
obtaining education and teaching positions at this level
45

Frances Losee, "Let the Women Learn With the
Men," Educational Review, March 1928, p. 167.

63
and for acquiring the material basis for true indepen­
dence.

In the years just prior to the Civil War, women

were getting at least the beginning of a college educa­
tion.

However, those women who wanted to enter the

teaching profession at the higher or collegiate ranks
met with what Pollard describes as "a marked tardiness
and a coldness of welcome."

46

Call explains that:

In the experiments which have been made
to satisfy this demand for the higher educa­
tion of women, there have been and still are
three general forms: the college in which
the two sexes meet on equal terms, the anex
in which the appliances of an existing
college are used for a coordinate institu­
tion, and the colleges exclusively for
women.4 7
The refusal on the part of old colleges and
universities in the East and in the South to admit women
made it necessary and desirable for advocates of the
women's movement to open separate women's institutions.
The discrimination against women was based on such
objections as summarized by Feldman:
Although the objections differed in sub­
stance, the underlying theme in almost all
the arguments against the education of women
was that it would somehow defeminize them.
Some thought, for example, that women could
not physiologically stand the pressures of
education . . . .
Others extended this
argument.

46
47

Pollard, op. cit., p. 62.
Call, op. cit., p. 102.

64
Equality of Professional Opportunities
for Early Women Faculty Members in
Institutions of Higher Education
Pollard reports that by 1860 women were on the
faculties of at least forty-six private colleges and
universities and one state university in seventeen
states.

For the most part, however, both the institu­

tions and teaching staffs were small with the number of
faculty women averaging about 2.6.

Their initial

professional employment was usually in women's colleges
located in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, and
Georgia, and also in Illinois.

Women were also on the

faculty of a few scattered private coeducational insti­
tutions of higher learning in Ohio and Michigan.

For

instance, Elizabeth Academy in New Washington,
Mississippi, which existed from 1819 until 1845,
employed six faculty women until around the 1830s; in
1835, Jacksonville Female Academy in Illinois employed
at least one woman; Georgia Female College had three
women on its original faculty in 1839; also, Oberlin
College in Ohio had one woman on its faculty in 1835 and,
before 1840, seven women were on the faculty there.

As

male colleges became coeducational in the 1840s, women,
who were originally hired to guide the activities of the
women students, were given additional assignments to
teach one or two academic subjects.

For the most part,

early women teachers in both women's and coeducational

65
institutions were products of the early women's
seminaries.

48

Women faculty members were not usually given the
title of professor, but were called assistants, assis­
tant teachers, instructors or preceptress.

Those who

were at the head of women's colleges were usually called
principals or presidents and those who were in charge of
women's departments in coeducational institutions were
usually referred to as principals or preceptresses.
Although the title of professor was mainly reserved for
men, a few women did manage to obtain appointments to
professorships.

In 1852 Rebecca Pennell was appointed

as professor at Antioch College in Ohio;

in 1853 Miss

Livonia Benedict, the first woman to earn the A.B.
degree in Michigan, was appointed a professor at
Michigan's Albion College.

Mrs. A. C. Graves became the

first woman professor at Mary Sharpe College, Tennessee,
in 1859.

Incidentally, Mary Sharpe College is reported

by some historians to be the first woman's college in
this country.

The distinguished Maria Sanford was

promoted to professor at Swarthmore in 1870.

49

Although it was a rarity to find women adminis­
trators, some few women did achieve that distinction.

48

Pollard, op. cit., pp. 271-272.

49Ibid., p. 275.

66
From 1843 to 1865 a woman principal headed the
Monticello Seminary in Illinois; in 1851 a woman princi­
pal was in charge of the Milwaukee Female College; in
1856 the Wisconsin Female College had a woman president;
from 1858 to 1867 Athens College in Alabama was headed
by a woman; Wheeling Female College had its woman presi­
dent in 1868.

Miss Francis Willard became president of

Evanston College for ladies in 1871; later, she became
the first woman to serve as dean of a college in a lead­
ing university when Evanston College merged with North­
western in 1875.

The first woman president with a Ph.D.

was M. Carey Thomas of Bryn Mawr.

50

Although the trend started somewhat earlier,
right after the Civil War in the Northeast and in the
South, motivated primarily by the refusal of the older,
established men's colleges either to admit women as
students or to employ them as faculty members, advocates
for equal educational opportunities for women found it
necessary increasingly to establish colleges exclusively
for women.

Throughout the country, however, rapid

growth of women teachers in all types of colleges and
universities pretty much characterized the period which
began in the 1870s.

For the years 1890-1891, even though

approximately 55 percent of all coeducational colleges

50Ibid., pp. 275-276.

and universities employed women teachers; still, they
accounted for only 13.68 percent of the total teaching
staff.

Moreover, their large representation on the

staff of women's colleges, about 71 percent, further
reduced their proportion to total faculties in all
institutions to about 26.73 percent.

The trend was

clear that the increasing participation of women as
college teachers was firmly established.

51

This trend was traced by Pollard.

As she

examined the proportion of women on the faculties of
various types of colleges and universities, she dis­
covered that forty-one institutions founded before 186 0
were known to have employed women on their faculties.
Miss Pollard also examined state universities, women's
colleges, coeducational colleges and universities, and
normal schools as reported to the Commission of Educa­
tion, and she arrived at certain significant conclu­
sions.

For example, she found that in the early women's

colleges, the proportions of women faculty were consis­
tently higher than in any other type of school.

Women

faculty members of the private coeducational institu­
tions founded before 1860 were proportionately smaller
than the national average; however, these same institu­
tions had consistently employed a proportion of women

51Ibid., p. 276.

68
larger than the national average for all coeducational
colleges and universities.

52

Acceptance of women on the faculties of the
state universities largely depended on the region.

In

the central or northwest region, state universities led
in the professional employment of women.

Founded in

1847, the University of Iowa employed a woman teacher
by 1859; in 1861 the University of Colorado opened with
a woman on its faculty in 1867.

On the other hand, the

state universities of the eastern and southern areas
were reluctant to employ women on their faculties.
Slightly less than half of the state universities of
the eastern, middle-Atlantic and southern regions did
not employ women until after 1910, and the Universities
of North Carolina and Virginia were the last of the
state universities to employ women as teachers.

Pollard

points out that in 1961, among all the state universi­
ties, the proportion of women to total faculty was
13.83 percent, a figure considerably lower than the
national average for all institutions.

53

After

numerically analyzing women on faculties of all insti­
tutions between 1890 and 1962, Pollard observes that:

52Ibid., p. 277.
53Ibid., p. 278.

69
The proportion of women in all institu­
tions from 1890 to 1911 fluctuated from 26.73
to 23.74 percent; then a gradual rise began,
which reached 30.99 percent during the war
years of 1945 and 1946. After fourteen years
of rapid decline the smallest proportion of
women to the total faculties was 21.97
percent in 1962.54
Based on comparative rates of increase of women
faculty in institutions of higher education, Bernard
chronicles the growth of academic women in America by
dividing it into four periods.

Beginning about 1850

and extending to 1900, the first period featured such
pioneers in the field as Maria Sanford, first woman
professor in this country? Ellen Richards, first woman
student and faculty member of the Massachusetts Insti­
tute of Technology; Florence Sabin, first woman student
and faculty member of Johns Hopkins University; Alice
Freeman Palmer and M. Carey Thomas, woman college
presidents, the former of Wellesley and the latter of
Bryn Mawr; and such leaders and activists as Vida
Scudder, Wellesley faculty member.

The period also saw

the founding and growth of women's colleges which
created the supply and fostered the demand for women's
services in the profession.

Another feature of the

period was the great reform movement of which the demand
for equal professional opportunities for women in higher

54Ibid., p. 279.

70
education was a part.

55

These women were being watched,

Bernard comments, as she describes their situation as,
"Analogous to that of the girls in the Hawthorn Plant
experiment; they were, in effect, cynosures, and they
attracted followers who wanted to share their acclaim.
Characteristic features of the second movement
from 1900 to 1920 included the growth of the land-grant
colleges with its subsequent birth of the home economics
movement, and the idealism of faculty women in the
various institutions.

During the period, while

humanistic-oriented academic women from the various
w o m en’s colleges were concerned with the reforms that
agitated the country, those science-oriented women in
the home economics division of the various colleges were
interested in the practical activity of applying the
57
benefits of science to the activities of the home.
The third period from 1920 to 1930 witnessed a
change.

Bernard points out that:

By the 1920s the eclat of the earlier
years had spent itself, and all of a sudden,
as historical and sociological forces operate,
the increases in the proportion of academic
personnel who were women slowed down.
The
excitement which had characterized the first
generation of academic women ebbed . . . .
55

Park:

Jessie Bernard, Academic Women (University
Pennsylvania State University, T964), p. 30.
56Ibid., p. 31.
57T, . ,
Ibid.

71
Those academic women were no longer, there­
fore, in the spotlight, but were taken for
granted. Like members of minority groups who
strive passionately to be like envied models,
once they succeeded they wondered why they
should try. They also became less attractive
to students as m o d e l s . 58
Other factors that accounted for such drastic changes
were the various post-war disillusionments.

Expected

reforms were either not accomplished, or proved dis­
appointing in their results.

During this period of the

1920s the proportion of the faculty women increased,
though slowly, but the rate of increase declined.

59

The fourth period from 1930 to 1960 began with
both the proportion and the rate of increase of faculty
women on the decline.

The depression was a contributing

factor, but more than economics were involved,
matter of supply and demand.

it was a

Bernard postulates that,

on the demand side, women depended on such factors as
the nature and number of institutions utilizing their
services in addition to such nebulous factors as cultural
forces of attitudes, convention, and discriminatory
practices.

In terms of supply, women were highly

influenced by the relative attractiveness of academic
positions competing with other careers, including

58Ibid., p. 36.
59Ibid., p. 37.

72
marriage, opportunity, costs, and individual motiva­
tional factors.®®
Increasing interest in the status of faculty
women in institutions of higher education stimulated
further research.

Examining one of the earliest

records of the status of women in higher education
during the early part of the twentieth century, Bernard
found that in the Report of the Commission of Education
(1916) containing statistics for the school year 19141915 that, although women gained admission to more
colleges in greater numbers and in greater proportions
than in the nineteenth century, still, their representa­
tion in the graduate and professional schools was meager.
During the year 1914-1915, women received 24 percent of
the graduate degrees, mostly the Master of Arts degree.
Out of a total of 546 Ph.D.'s, women received only 60 or
11 percent.

In professional schools, women comprised

only 3.5 percent.
In her review of early studies that surveyed
women teachers in institutions of higher education,
Pollard writes that in the early 1900s women were
located in greater numbers in western institutions,
concentrated in only a few teaching fields, relegated
in large numbers to the lower academic ranks, and were

73
meagerly represented in administrative positions.
According to Pollard, the results of a survey of women
teachers in state colleges and universities reported by
C. H. Handschin in 1912 entitled,

"The Percentage of

Women Teachers in State Colleges and Universities,"
revealed that, in all state colleges and universities,
the average proportion of women was a little more than 9
percent, about 6 percent east of the Mississippi, but
slightly more than 13 percent west of the Mississippi.
In the west, more coeducational institutions existed,
western women were less conservative, western institu­
tions were founded after women began their thrust for
college positions, and western states, suffering from
lack of funds, realized that women were cheaper.

The

study also revealed that in a random selection of eleven
higher educational institutions 149 faculty members were
women.

Of these 149 women, 10 percent were full profes­

sors, 5 percent associate professors, 10 percent
assistant professors, and 73 percent was in the rank of
instructor.

Teaching fields in which women were found

above the rank of instructor throughout all the states
were English, music, modern language, domestic science
and home economics.

61

Pollard, op. cit., pp. 26-29.

74
Pollard also reviewed an investigation con­
ducted by Committee W of the American Association of
University Professors in 1921, which surveyed 145
institutions to obtain data on policies regarding the
employment of women, academic ranks, and faculty
salaries*

This report showed that, out of 104 coeduca­

tional institutions of higher learning, with a total
faculty of 4,760, faculty women professors represented
4 percent, with less than 3 percent women professors if
the fields of home economics and physical education were
eliminated.

Again, this study indicates that women were

concentrated in the lower ranks with women faculty
comprising only 7.9 percent of all professorial ranks,
but 23.5 percent of instructorships.

In addition, 49

percent of the institutions investigated had no women
professors on their faculty, 26 percent had no women of
any professorial rank in their college of arts and
sciences, and 25 institutions had no dean of women.

In

one eastern university, cites Pollard, one woman out of
a staff of 600 was employed.

In another eastern univer­

sity the dean reported that the officials would not
hesitate to seriously consider appointment of any woman
who could demonstrate that she was able to perform
better than a man.

The study also found that women

75
were paid less salary than men for the same type of
i 62
work.
The research division of the American Associa­
tion of University Women conducted a similar study in
1924.

In a report by Ella Lonn, labeled "Academic

Status of Women on University Faculties," Lonn
studied seventy universities which were members of the
Association of American Universities.

Drawing conclu­

sions from the results of questionnaires sent to depart
ment chairmen, Dr. Lonn notes that the consensus of
opinion was that department chairmen do not mind employ
ing women as long as they are not in their departments,
and do not hold rank of professor.

Citing reasons for

the exclusion of women on their staff, Lonn sum­
marized the following:

scholarship, broad viewpoint,

vigor and aggressiveness in teaching methods, world­
mindedness, and mastery of subject matter.

Officials

seem to believe that women are lacking in many of these
areas.

63
In another report, Committee W of the American

Association of University Professors presented tabula­
tions and a digest of opinions as to various aspects of
the work performed by women in college and university

®^Ibid., pp. 30-31.

76
faculties.

The tabulations were based on 130 answers

from 86 coeducational institutions and 22 answers from
13 colleges for women.

Summarizing the numerous

extracts of replies to the question,

"How does the

teaching of women in your facility compare with that of
the men?," the committee reported that, although some
respondents admitted to their own naive prejudices when
faced with the facts of their own institutions, many
felt that the belief so widespread by both men and women
teachers that women tend to place undue emphasis on
details and not enough emphasis on broad views and
principles, making it difficult not to conclude that
this opinion must have some basis in fact.

64

Respon­

dents who stated that women have demonstrated that they
can handle as much or more college work then men
totaled 110.

Of the coeducational faculty members, 4 6

felt that male students prefer men as teachers and 44
felt that girls also prefer men as teachers;

50 respon­

dents reported that there is no preference because such
determination depends on individual teachers rather
than sex.

Of the men, 81 percent believed women to be

as equally successful in college teaching as their male
colleagues; however, only 54 percent believed women to

64

"Status of Women in College and University
Faculties," School and Society XXI {January 3, 1 9 2 5 ) :16.

77
be successful with advanced classes.

In terms of

scholarly advancement, 59 percent believed that women
continue to advance, and 31 percent believed that they
are equal to men as far as productive scholarship is
- 65
concerned.
An early study of academic women conducted by
Hutchinson, who questioned 1,025 women receiving their
Ph.D.'s between 1877 and 1924, found that, of the 60
percent respondents engaged in college teaching, most
emphasized the importance of obtaining the doctorate for
their position.

For them, as well as their male counter­

parts, obtaining the doctorate resulted in substantial
salary increase.

However, many of the respondents

reported that the doctorate did not guarantee equality.
They felt that they were discriminated against with
regard to obtaining appointments, promotions, and salary
increases.

66

In 1935, the A.A.U.W. National Committee on the
Economic and Legal Status of Women wanted to ascertain
facts about the economic status of women in universities
during the depression period.

Specific facts sought by

the committee included data on employment, unemployment.

65Ibid.
66

Emilie J. Hutchinson, "Women and the Ph.D.,"
Journal of the American Association of University Women
XXII (October 1928):19-22.

78
earnings, discrimination encountered, and women's respon
sibility for dependents.
were returned.

Nearly 10,000 questionnaires

Seventy-nine percent of the women

received a year or more of training after leaving
college, and 45 percent had taken from one to four years
of study.

Two-thirds had engaged in some sort of

graduate study and 6 percent had obtained a Ph.D. or a
professional degree.

In regard to age and marital

status, these women were pretty well distributed in the
five-year classes from 25 to 50 years of age with 7
percent under 25 and 17 percent over 50.

Only 13

percent of the women were married, and they tended to be
younger than their single sisters.^
A large proportion, 69 percent, of the women in
the study were engaged in educational work, and onefifth were executives.

These women were not affected so

seriously by the depression as might have been expected.
In the ten years, 1925 to 1934 inclusive, with the great
depression, only 8 percent of the women met more than
one period of enforced idleness, and 21 percent had only
one such experience.

Of the unemployed, one-half were

idle for personal reasons and in only 177 cases was it
involuntary, a third of the latter because of marriage

67

Susan H. Kingsbury, "A Study of the Economic
Status of University Women," Journal of the American
Association of University Women 32 (June 1939):224-228.

79
or age.

A larger proportion of married women were idle

or on part-time work, as were also the younger or less
experienced women.

68

The study revealed that, unless a woman secured
the doctor's degree, her time and investment in pursuing
educational goals were not reflected in increased
earnings.

Of the group obtaining the doctorate,

percent attained earnings of $3,000 or more;

55

33 percent

earned $3,000 to $4,000, and 22 percent earned $4,000 or
more.

Those women with the master's degree earned less

than those with the highest degree.

Only 17 percent

reached $3,000 or more, but 36 percent earned $2,500 or
more.

Of those with only a bachelor's degree,

8 percent

earned $3,000 or more, and 73 percent earned less than
$2,000.

The study also showed that 41 percent or 3,618

women were supporting dependents either fully or par­
tially.

Of the 3,153 women reporting the extent of their

responsibility,
persons.

36 percent cared entirely for one or more

Only 20 percent of those with dependents

reported that they were supporting children.

Also, the

study indicated that women were supporting dependents on
meager incomes:

68Ibid.

41 to 52 percent of those with one to

80
four dependents earned less than $2,000, and 61 to 71
percent earned less than $2,500.

69

The investigation concluded that women suffer
serious discrimination.

According to the study:

One third indicated the number of
instances that had occurred in the period
since 1929 because of sex, marital status,
youth, or advanced age. While the last two
reasons assigned may apply to men also, the
other two could not. And it is sex and
marital status that were assigned as causes
of discrimination by 70 percent of these
women; also many women maintain that they
have encountered more than one experience.
That is, of the instances cited, 81 percent
were given as due to sex and marital
status. Although but 13 percent of all
women were married, 19 percent of the indi­
viduals claiming difficulty indicated
marital status as a cause.70
The contributions of women faculty to the profes­
sion have been the focus of numerous studies.

Examining

the more than 100,000 biographies of living scholars in
all fields of scholarship obtained from the various
biographical compilations from three volumes of American
Men of Science and the one volume, Dictionary of American
Scholars, and recording data for all the women listed in
the first fifty pages of each hundred in all four
volumes. Newcomer was able to assess women scholars on
the basis of such information as:

comparison of the

number of women scholars with the number of men scholars,
69Ibid., pp. 226-227.
70Ibid., p. 227.

81
fields to which women scholars are attracted, and kind
of formal education that produces them.

Her conclusions

indicate that estimated percentage of women among the
scholars is far below the percentage of women in the
college population.

The majority of the listed scholars

graduated from college between 1900 and 1950 with the
peak for women occurring in 1920.

Of the total number

of students during that period, enrollment of women
varied from a little over one-third to a little less
than one-half.

Thus, the 6 percent estimated women

scholars (see Table 1) and total enrollment are con71
siderably disproportionate.
When only doctor's degrees were taken into
account, Newcomer found that women made up 14 percent
of the total, but still accounted for only 6 percent
of the scholars.

The proportion of women with doctor's

degrees was less than half that of the men, meaning
that those women who continue their education as far as
the Ph.D. are less likely to use their education for
further scholarship than men who obtain the degree.
Newcomer asserts that family responsibilities and
discrimination in various professional fields account
for this disparity between men and women scholars.
Between 35 and 40 percent of the listed women scholars

71

Newcomer, op. cit., pp. 190-191.

TABLE 1.— Number of Women Scholars, 1956.

Field of Study

Women in
the Sample

Estimated Total
of Women Listed

Approximate
Number of
Men and Women
Listed

Women as
Percentage
of Total

Physical sciences

650

1,300

43,500

3

Biological sciences

892

1,784

25,000

7

Social and behavioral
sciences

664

1,328

25,000

5

1,177

2,354

18,000

13

3,383

6,766

111,500

6

Humanities
Total

SOURCE: Mable Newcomer, A Century of Higher Education for American Women
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 190.

83
are married.

For most women, marriage is likely to

prove a handicap as domestic responsibilities interfere
with scholarly attainment.

Even unmarried women are

frequently expected to live in or near the family home,
thereby restricting opportunities in other sections of
the country that may provide wider choices.

Men's

colleges, unlike the women's colleges, have been reluc­
tant to hire women; even coeducational institutions have
kept professional women as a small minority in their
faculties, except in teacher's and junior colleges.

On

the whole, opportunities are greater for men than
72
women.
When comparisons were made by Newcomer of the
field of concentration of women scholars with those of
women students who graduated in i956, she finds that
long-term trends in student choices and professional
opportunities, rather than changing student interests,
determine major differences.

About 50 percent of the

scholars obtained their A.B. degree before 1930.

The

figures for recent graduates, observes Newcomer,
reflect a decline over the past fifty years in the
proportion of women specializing in science, with a
large proportion of recent graduates showing more of an

72Ibid., p. 192.

84
interest in the humanities and social sciences than the
physical and biological sciences.73
More than two-thirds of the women held positions
on university and college faculties, cites Newcomer,
with approximately one-third of the group teaching in
women's colleges and two-thirds in coeducational insti­
tutions.

Further examination of these two types of

institutions shows that women colleges have produced a
little more than twice the number of women scholars as
reflected from their proportion of enrollments.

With

about 16 percent of all students enrolled, women's
colleges accounted for 34 percent of all women scholars.
After excluding Catholic women's colleges and public
women's colleges from the figures, Newcomer observes
that the remaining women's colleges account for 25
percent of the scholars with 8 percent of the enrollment.
By tabulating the eight women's liberal arts colleges
separately, Newcomer discusses that these colleges, as a
group, accounted for 17 percent of the scholars with 2
percent enrollment of the women's scholars.

She con­

cludes that the influence of individual faculty members
and the presence of large numbers of women scholars on
the faculties of the women's colleges are important
factors in encouraging scholarship.

73Ibid.

She explains that:

85
Not only are women faculty more likely to
have faith in the intellectual capacity of
women students and encourage them to go on
with graduate work; they also serve as
"models" for their students.
They are
living evidence that scholarship is not a
masculine monopoly.
Despite the fact that women's colleged produced more
than twice the number of scholars that their enrollment
accounted for, figures for coeducational institutions
were even more striking.

When Newcomer tabulated the

data for women's scholars who graduate from three
liberal arts colleges— Swarthmore, Carleton, and
Oberlin— she found that Oberlin produced three times the
number that its enrollment accounted for, Carleton
produced six times its quota, and Swarthmore eighteen
times its quota.

75

Pressey reports the major findings of a study of
the women active in scientific work.

Investigating the

687 women included in the 1927 edition of "American Men
of Science," Pressey concludes that 503 or 73 percent
of the women scientists are produced in the north
atlantic and north central states.

In terms of gross

numbers. New York and Massachusetts are the most produc­
tive states, but in proportion to population, New
Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island are the most

*

74Ibid., p. 198.
75Ibid., p. 200.

86
productive states.

The study also indicates that the

average age of this group is forty-two, and most of the
women are single; that is, only 72 of the 687 or 10
percent are amrried.

The greater proportion attended an

endowed women's college of the East, and usually
received a B.A. degree.

Moreover, the typical advanced

degree, the Ph.D., is also obtained over half the time
in an endowed institution.

In the majority of cases,

biological science is their major interest, and teaching
their major profession.

Of the 687 women, 434 are

faculty members, 294 with the rank of assistant professor or higher.76
Present Trends in the Equality of
Professional Opportunities for
Faculty Women in the
1960s and 1970s
Employment Opportunities for
Faculty Women Members
Increasingly prominent in the literature
concerning employment of women in faculty positions in
institutions of higher education is evidence pointing to
the existence of substantial degree of discrimination.
Problems of differential treatment begin earlier, but
are evident when women enter the professional world.
Studies indicate that a number of factors operate
76

Luella Cole Pressey, "The Women Whose Names
Appear in 'American Men of Science' for 1927," School
and Society XXIX (January 19, 1929):96-100.

87
jointly to produce a propensity toward disproportionate
treatment of women at the time of their initial employ­
ment:

the recruitment process, differential treatment

in appointing women to faculty positions, sex discrimina­
tion in terms of anti-nepotism policies, in-bred hiring
practices, and restrictions on part-time faculty.
Recruitment Process
There is strong evidence that in many institu­
tions of higher education recruitment procedures are, in
practice although not in stated policy, more favorable
to men than they are to women.

For example, Crim writes

that women are not only less likely to obtain an appoint­
ment to a faculty position, but they are also less
77
likely to learn about job openings.
Further, the old
boy's method of recruiting and hiring is an "unwritten
but functionally effective 'affirmative action' plan for
78
white males," asserts Bernice Sandler.
In his study,
Marcus reports that most successful recruiting is still
done by personal inquiries, referrals, phone calls,
letters, and recruitment at national conferences.

After

interviewing department heads in the College of Arts and
77

Roger Douglas Crim, "Expressed Attitudes of
Faculty Men and Women Toward Faculty Women in Higher
Education in New Hampshire," Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Mississippi, 1978, p. 11.

88
Science at the University of Massachusetts, Marcus
concludes that the recruitment approach perceived to be
the most effective by department heads and most trusted
by faculty members is the network system.

During 1974-

75, Marcus continues, a study of recruitment efforts
revealed that of 94 finalists for 28 faculty positions,
approximately 39 were females.

Those finalists who

responded to public advertisements represented only 30.9
79
percent, while the remainder used the network system.
A number of reports have pointed out that such
methods are breaking down and proposed solutions have
been varied and numerous.

For example, The Carnegie

Commission report points out that, under the impact of
HEW pressure and as a result of the activities of the
numerous committees on the status of women, along with
the fact that some faculty members and search committees
have made special efforts to broaden recruitment efforts,
contributions have been made toward reducing the pre­
vailing practice of using "Cozy" methods to recruit and
QQ

hire.

Strommer suggests that the informal channels of

information created by the administrative structure
should be duplicated by women.
79

Since information passed

On Campus With Women (Washington, D.C.:
Association of^ American Colleges, 1975).
80
The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
Opportunities for Women in Higher Education (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), pp. 119-120.

89
at poker parties and during five o'clock happy hours
excludes women, explains Strommer, women must create
81
their own network of information and associates.
As
chairperson of the American Psychological Association's
Task Force on the Status of Women in Psychology, Astin
suggests the development of rosters to facilitate the
recruiting efforts of colleagues by providing them with
a large pool of potential faculty members.

"There is a

need for more programmatic efforts to increase the
participation of women in professional activities," pro­
pose Astin and Bayer,

"and also a need to develop a

workable system to assist in the identification of
women talent."

82

Differential Treatment in
Appointing Women to Faculty
Positions
In an effort to determine specific factors that
significantly affected the employment selection of women
candidates for faculty positions in academe, Simpson,
with a questionnaire designed to reveal discriminatory
employment choices and unfavorable attitudes toward
women,

sampled deans, department chairpersons and total
81

Diane W. Strommer, "Whither Thou Goest:
Feminism and the Education of Wo m e n , ” Journal of NAWDAC
39 (Winter 1 9 7 6 ) :85.
82
Helen S. Astin, "Sex Discrimination in
Academe," Educational Record 53 (Spring 1972):101-118.

90
faculty in selected academic fields at six Pennsylvania
institutions.

He provided them with pairs of resumes

with descriptive material held constant.

His findings

indicate that employing agents exhibited discriminatory
attitudes toward women in their significantly more
frequent choice and higher preference ratings of men
over women even though both were equally qualified.
The superior woman, however, was selected over the male
candidate.83
A similar study was conducted by Fidell.

Ques­

tionnaires were sent to psychology departments of 228
colleges and universities.

Each questionnaire contained

ten paragraphs, each of which described a fabricated
candidate to be evaluated as if to be hired.

The candi­

dates were distinguished by different balances of nine
factors that seemed important in evaluations.

Half the

sample was told that the candidates were all women, and
half was told that they were all men.

Responses indi­

cated that sex discrimination on hiring decisions was
significant, as men obtained more of the higher

83

Lawrence A. Simpson, "A Study of Employing
Agents' Attitudes Toward Academic Women in Higher
Education," Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, 1968.

91
positions, all the full professorships, and more of
those positions leading to tenure than did women.84
Discriminatory hiring practices are discussed by
Frazier who writes of an experiment conducted in 1970 in
which eight paragraphs giving the professional accom­
plishments of a young psychologist were sent to depart­
ment chairmen all over the country.
divided according to sex.

The forms were

Results showed that the

departments rated the men more desirable than the women
applicants in six of the eight instances.

85

Such find­

ings are consistent with another study using Woodrow
Wilson Fellows who had become college teachers which
found that "the men had received three times as many
initial job offers as had the women."

86

Frazier points

out that:
Other researchers who have recently
investigated discrimination in the hiring of
male and female professors summarize the
situation:
"When all variables were equal
except sex, the male candidate was typically
chosen for employment."87

84

L. S. Fidell, "Empirical Verification of Sex
Discrimination in Hiring Practices in Psychology,"
American Psychologist 25 (1970):1094-1098.
85

Nancy Frazier and Myra Sudker, Sexism in School
and Society (New York:
Harper and Row, 197 3), p. 160.
86Ibid., p. 161.
87Ibid.

92
Anti-Nepotism Regulations
Another source of discrimination in faculty
employment of women is anti-nepotism regulations,
explicitly stated or not, which forbid employing rela­
tives in comparable positions at the same institutions.
Originally passed to prevent pressure to hire incompe­
tents with influential connections,

these regulations

are now used almost exclusively for the sole purpose of
restricting women.

88

Graham,

for example, reports that

at one prestigious university, although 20 percent of
the wives of junior faculty members have Ph.D.'s, none
is a member of the faculty.

89

An early comprehensive study on the subject of
anti-nepotism was conducted by the American Association
of University Women in 1959-1960.

The sample included

three hundred sixty-three public and private institu­
tions.

Questioning the institutions about their

personnel policies generally and asking specific ques­
tions about anti-nepotism regulations, the researchers
obtained an overall response rate of 79 percent.

Those

institutions replying that they had anti-nepotism
regulations represented 26.3 percent, while 18.2 percent
88

Heather Sigworth, "The Legal Status of AntiNepotism Regulations,” AAUP Bulletin 58 (March 1972):
31-34.
89

Patricia A. Graham, "Women in Academe,"
Science 169 (September 25, 1970):1289.

93
replied that they had no restrictive regulations, but do
have restrictive policies.

Institutions indicating

having no anti-nepotism regulations represented 55.4
percent.

90

Commenting on the same study, Shaffer and

Shaffer maintain that the study not only reveals that
about half of all educational institutions and over twothirds of all large public colleges and universities
have regulations serving as barriers to the employment
of more than one family member on the same faculty, but
also, when schools were ordered by size, more liberal
hiring policies were found among institutions with
smaller enrollments than larger enrollment institutions.
Also, no restrictions on hiring were more likely to be
found in private universities than public ones.

91

Other early studies report similar findings.

In

a study of the professional characteristics of women
Ph.D.'s, Simon et al. document that of the married women
with Ph.D.'s, 15 percent believed that their careers had
been hurt by anti-nepotism regulations.

Although they

did not believe that anti-nepotism regulations had been
90

Rita J. Simon, Shirley M. Clark, and Larry
Tift, "Of Nepotism, Marriage and the Pursuit of an
Academic Career," Sociology of Education 39 (1966):344.
^ H a r r y G. Shaffer and Juliet P. Shaffer, "Job
Discrimination Against Faculty Wives:
Restrictive
Employment Practices in Colleges and Universities,"
Journal of Higher Education 37 (January 1961):10-15.

94
barriers to their entry into the academic market, but
barriers to their career development.

92

In another

early survey, after selecting a representative sample of
95 and surveying 285 public and private institutions,
Dolan and Davis found that over half of the institutions
did not have anti-nepotism rules, and that public schools
were more closed than private ones.

93

Discussing the legal issues raised by the
enforcement of anti-nepotism policies in educational
institutions, Sigworth notes that for a few years Execu­
tive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375,
was the only federal legal inhibition against discrimina­
tion in female employment at higher educational institu­
tions.

However, in some states equal employment oppor­

tunity provisions do exist specifically to challenge
anti-nepotism regulations.

For example, the Colorado

Civil Rights Commission Sex Discrimination Guidelines
prohibit the exclusion of qualified women in educational
institutions because of the restrictions on the employ­
ment of relatives.

Also, the Massachusetts Civil Rights

Commission interprets its state law as prohibiting
discriminatory application of restrictive policies.
92
93

Simon, op. cit., p. 344.

Eleanor Dolan and Margaret P. Davis, "AntiNepotism Rules in Colleges and Universities:
Their
Effect on the Faculty Employment of Women," Educational
Record 41 (October 1969):285-291.

95
The new constitution of Illinois and the recent amend­
ment to the Indiana Civil Rights Act provide similar
prohibitive provisions.

94

Alice Rossi announces that almost unanimous
support from professional educational organizations for
the removal of anti-nepotism regulations had emerged
since 1971 when American Association of University
Professors

(AAUP) adopted a statement demanding repeal

of such policies based on the grounds that they tend to
serve as barriers to the professional opportunities of
academic women.

However, Rossi states that more work

is needed to make this official position a reality.

A

recent survey conducted by the national office under the
sponsorship of Committee W reveals that of the 37 8
responses received from AAUP chapter officers,

52

indicated that their institutions restricted the employ­
ment of two family members at the same institutions;

52

chapter officers reported restricted employment against
simultaneous service in the same department, and 43
reported no written policies.

Rossi concludes:

Thus anti-nepotism policies and practices
remain a problem, perhaps at a more subtle
level than in the past, in about 38 percent
of the institutions responding to our
inquiry.95
94
95

Sigworth, op. cit., p. 113.

Alice Rossi, "Report of Committee W , " AAUP
Bulletin 59 {March 1973):173.

96
To some extent, some institutions have opted to
end nepotism policies because of the differential
impact on faculty wives.

Leppaluato's findings show

that even in the early seventies Stanford, Oberlin, and
the Universities of Maine, Minnesota, and Michigan
either had revised or abolished nepotism rules to allow
96
husbands and wives to work in the same department.
A recent study designed to test whether or not
anti-nepotism policies still persisted in the attitudes
of college and university faculty, Pingree et al.
surveyed the chairpersons of departments of psychology
and sociology concerning their attitudes toward hiring a
husband and wife in their department.

Responses indi­

cated 37 percent chairpersons opposed, 25 percent were
neutral, and 38 percent supported the idea.

The

researchers conclude that, "Chairpersons . . . made
many comments that indicate their belief systems
continue to operate as a barrier to hiring couples
desiring employment in the same academic department."

97

96
Jean R. Leppaluato, "Attitude Change and Sex
Discrimination: The Crunch Hypothesis," a paper pre­
sented before the Western Psychological Association,
1972, pp. 1-8.
97
Susan Pingree, Mitilda Butler, William Paisley,
and Robert Hawkins, "Anti-Nepotism's Ghost: Attitudes
of Administrators Toward Hiring Professional Couples,"
Psychology of Women Quarterly 3 (Fall 1978):22-29.

97
No Inbred Hiring Practices
The policy of no inbred hiring# like the nepo­
tism regulation, contributes to the deprivation of
equal employment opportunities for women in institutions
of higher learning.

This policy by which departments,

colleges and universities refuse to advance their gradu­
ates to positions on the faculty has as its usual
rationale the belief that students tend to be indoctri­
nated with ideology and approaches of senior faculty
members.

Faculty drawn from the ranks are likely to be

influenced by such indoctrination.

98

Scott proposes that faculty wives are dis­
advantaged by such policies.

For example, if they

attend graduate school where their husbands are employed
as faculty members, Scott points out, once they obtain
their degree, they are confronted with the fact that the
university will not hire them.

Disputing the usual

accepted rationale for such policies and practices,
Scott asserts that:
The "no-inbred-hiring" policy was estab­
lished and widely accepted in an era of
academic life very different from today's.
Universities, faculties, and student bodies
were smaller; there was much less movement
from campus to campus, much less variety in
subject, discipline, approach.
Today's
university, however, needs no such discri­
minatory restrictions . . . .
Any policy
98
Opportunities for Women in Higher Education,
op. cit., p. 110.

98
based on exclusion betrays the university's
principles and restricts its chances as well
as those of any person, especially a woman
seeking a job.*9
Restrictions on Part-Time
Faculty
It has been pointed out in the literature that
the tendency to hire women in non-ladder and non-tenure
positions represents still another type of discrimina­
tion in employing faculty women.

One of the diffi­

culties in evaluating the claim of discrimination,
however, is the fact that part-timers as a group are
discriminated a g a i n s t . H o w e v e r ,

the Carnegie Commis­

sion suggests that, although the practice may apply to
both sexes, women are more likely to be affected because
family responsibilities frequently make full-time
employment d i f f i c u l t . A l i c e Rossi writes that parttime faculty positions have expanded over the last
twenty-five years because of increasing demand for such
services.

In the early 1960s, 44 percent of all the

teaching and professional personnel in higher education
99

Ann Scott,
May 14, 1970, p. 7.

"The Half-Eaten Apple," Reporter,

■^^Barbara H. Tuckman and Howard P. Tuckman,
"Part-Timers, Sex Discrimination and Career Choice at
Two-Year Institutions: Further Findings from the AAUP
Survey," Academe-Bulletin of the AAUP 66 (March 1980):
71.
^^Opportunities for Women in Higher Education,
op. cit., p . 110.

99
were full-time faculty, but 37 percent were part-time
faculty.

Rossi explains that women are highly repre­

sented among the part-time faculty, and they provide "an
expendable labor supply for colleges and universities to
add or drop from their staffs in response to variations
in the size of the study body and bugetary
.,102
appropriations."
•

Regardless of their training and aspirations,
women, too often, have been marginally placed in teach­
ing and research positions and function as paraprofessionals.

103

In most institutions, part-time

faculty members are not privileged to vote in faculty
meetings, and are not eligible for the full range of
faculty benefits.

104

Further, the American Historical

Association's study revealed that in their survey 77
percent of all men Ph.D.'s had been hired initially as
assistant professors, while only 47 percent of the women
Ph.D.'s were hired at that r a n k . ^ ^

102

Alice Rossi, "Discrimination and Demography
Restrict Opportunities for Academic Women," College and
University Business, February 1970, p. 74.
103
Sheila Tobias and Margaret Rumbarger, "FullStatus Part-Time Faculty," in W. Todd Furniss and
Patricia Alberg Graham, eds., Women in Higher Education
(Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1974)

104ibid.
105Ibid.

100
Over the past decade# however# increased interest
in part-time positions has occurred with a somewhat
different focus accompanied by efforts to change insti­
tutional policies.

In their review of the literature,

Drepenbrock, Halfert and Vandergruff found that the 1975
Bureau of Labor Statistics Report indicates that
approximately 34 percent of all women workers hold
part-time jobs.^®^

Tuckman and Tuckman examine the

question of whether discrimination by sex exists among
part-time faculty at two-year institutions# and find
what appears to be differences in salaries and employment
conditions.

This sex differential particularly affects

women who are employed part time but would prefer to be
employed in a full-time academic position.

107

The theme of the role of part-time positions with
its concomitant employment flexibility is expressed in a
number of reports.

For example# Drepenbrock# Halfert

and Vandergruff suggest that several factors contribute
to the increase of interest in part-time faculty
employment in academe# including a contracting academic
job market# affirmative action requirements to increase

* ^ E l a i n e C. Drepenbrock, Karen Halfert and
Judith C. Vandergruff Montgomery County Community College
Survey Conducted by Montgomery County Commission for
Women, U.S., Educational Resources Information Center,
ERIC Document ED 152 342# 1976.
107

Tuckman and Tuckman# op. cit.# p. 71.

101
opportunities for women, financial stringency resulting
in tight budgets for the institutions, and the fact that
part-time employment emerges as an attractive alterna108
tive to faculty layoffs.
In addition, changing
attitudes about family roles is another factor operating
to generate more demands for the kind of employment
flexibility that part-time employment offers.

109

Nancy

Gray suggests a tenure system for part-time faculty, and
urges the same standards and benefits to be made avail­
able for part-time faculty as are now available for
full-time faculty.

More and more institutions are

finding ways to tailor part-time policies to fit their
specific needs, while broadening their employment options
to benefit both sexes.
Advancement Opportunities for Women
Faculty Members
Problems of Differential
Treatment in the Academic
Reward System
Another barrier experienced by women faculty
members is found in the academic reward system.

Accord­

ing to a recent study of the status of women in six
hundred United States colleges and universities
108

Drepenbrock et al., op. cit.

109ibia.
^ ^ N a n c y Gray, "Report of Committee W, 1976-77,"
AAUP Bulletin 63 (August 1977):443.

102
conducted by the American Association of University
Women, female faculty members experience more severe
restrictions than their male counterparts.

The report

points out that:
She is more likely to be hired at a lower
rank, to remain in that rank longer, and to
be paid a lower salary.
She is less likely
to be chosen as a chairperson or dean, or to
be asked to serve on prestigious committees,
or invited to participate in high level
decision-making.m
Other studies provide information on the kinds
of academic rewards women can expect as faculty members
in higher educational institutions.

Centra investigates

how the experiences of women recipients of the doctorate
differ from those of men with similar educational back­
ground.

On the basis of his research, which analyzed

responses from 3,658 men and women matched according to
their fields, institutions attended and year of gradua­
tion— that is, either 1950, 1960, or 1968— he concludes
that women have not reaped the rewards enjoyed by their
male counterparts.

112

Even when women are statistically

matched with men on the variables that determine
rewards, reports Schlossberg, they are still apt to fall

11^Margaret Moses Young, "Sex Discrimination in
Higher Education," The Civil Rights Review, July/August
1978, pp. 41-42.
112

John A. Centra, "Women with Doctorates,"
Change, February 1975, pp. 49 and 61.

103
below men in rank and salary.

113

In a study of women

doctorates, that revealed their current situations
regarding academic rewards, La Sort finds that 40
percent cites salary discrimination and 32 percent
charges discrimination in tenure and p r o m o t i o n . I n
their study, Weidman and Weidman confirm that rank and
salary differentials favor men even when highest degrees
115
and productivity are controlled.
Astin and Bayer
state that the academic reward system is established by
men.

In order for faculty women to obtain adequate

compensation, they must accept and exhibit men's
criteria for such rewards.

This means that they must

respect administrative research and publications over
teaching.
The literature reveals numerous factors in
discussions of the academic reward system.

This study

^■^Nancy K. Schlossberg, "The Right to be Wrong
is Gone: Women in Academe," Educational Record LV
{February 1974):258.
114
Michael A. La Sort, "Academic Women's
Salaries:
Equal Pay for Equal Work?," Journal of Higher
Education 42 (April 1971):266.
115
Carla Sue Weidman and Jack C. Weidman, "The
Woman Professor of Education:
Social and Occupational
Characteristics," a paper presented at the annual meet­
ing of the American Research Association, Washington,
D.C., April 1, 1975, p. 1.
116
Helen S. Astin and Alan E. Bayer, "Sex Discri­
mination in Academe," Educational Record 53 {Spring
1972):101-118.

104
will be restricted to five, including:

rank, promo­

tion, criteria for promotion, committee appointment,
and salary.
Rank
A major area in which educational institutions
have been accused by investigators of impeding full
development of faculty women's talents is in differen­
tial academic ranking.

The literature indicates that

women are overly concentrated in certain ranks and
correspondingly less adequately represented in others.
Graham notes that "the most single observation about
women in the academic world is that their numbers
decrease dramatically as the importance of the post
i n c r e a s e s . S e x t o n writes that on a national level
women represent 32 percent of instructors, 19 percent of
assistant professors, 15 percent of associate professors
and only 8 percent of full professors.

Sexton finds a

similar trend at the seven sisters colleges where women
are 82 percent of the nonprofessional teaching staff, 64
percent assistant professors,

54 percent associate
118
professors and 22 percent full professors.
117

Patricia Alberg Graham, "Status Transitions of
Women Students, Faculty and Administrators," in Alice
Rossi and Ann Calderwood, eds.. Academic Women on the
Move (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1973), p. T63.
118

Patricia Sexton, Women in Education (Indiana:
The Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1976), p.121.

105
Other reports indicate similar findings.
Centra's study claims that proportionately more women
than men hold lower academic ranks of instructors and
assistant professors while more men are full professors
and heads of departments.

119

In another detailed study

based on responses to the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) survey, Astin and Hirsch
find that the percentage of women among assistant
professors is, without exception, much higher than the
proportion of women full professors, and the proportion
of women associate professors is also higher, although
by a smaller margin.
Evidence indicates that, over the years, women
have lost status in the professional ranks while they
have gained in the lower ranks.

For example, Crim

states that women represented 9.9 percent of all profes­
sors in 1959-60 as compared to 8.6 percent in 1971-72.
Women associate professors have declined by 2.9 percent
and assistant professors by one percent.
121
however, have made significant gains.

Instructors,
In their

review of current data for the State of New York and the
nation as a whole for the purpose of assessing women's

119
120
121

Centra, op. cit., p. 49.

Astin and Hirsch, op. cit., p. 124.
Crim, op. cit., p. 15.

106
status in higher education, The University of the State
of New York and The State Department of New York docu­
ment that nationally the percent of women as professors
fell from 9.9 percent in 1959-60 to 9.4 percent in
1974-75 with the largest increase at the instructor
level.

The report shows that the statistics for New

York follow the same trend.

122

A number of investigators have reported on dif­
ferential variation according to individual institutions
of higher learning.

Frazier points out that at

Connecticut College, at each academic rank, women were
more likely than men to have the Ph.D. when appointed,
yet they had to wait longer than men before they were
permitted to the next rank.

123

. .
.
Examining the major ^ob

categories at the State University of New York at
Buffalo, Ann Scott claims that women are under-utilized
as they move up through the educational job categories.
They represent 14 percent of the faculty and only 5
percent of the full professors.

She reports that the

number of women does not equal the number of men in any
of the seven faculties, and in the faculty of Arts and
Letters, which includes many of the disciplines in which
122

Women in Higher Education in New York State;
Students, Faculty and Administrators, an information
paper, The University of the State of New York {New York:
The State Department, 1976), p. 120.
123

Frazier and Sudker, op. cit., p. 163.

107
faculty women tend to concentrate, the patterns are not
any more favorable to women than anywhere else.

Total

percentage patterns are the same as the University as a
whole;

that is, 86 percent men to 14 percent women.

Faculties of 90 percent or over male are to be found in
art, classics, English and music.

124

Reporting on the

conditions at the University of Chicago in 1969,
Husbands documents that women were 2.2 percent of full
professors and 6 percent of associate professors, yet,
they were 27 percent of the lecturers.

Twenty-four

percent of research associates and 57 percent of the
125
undergraduate lecturers.
Examining sex discrimina­
tion in fifteen departments in the College of Arts and
Sciences at the University of Maryland, Sandler reports
that, of these departments, nine had no women full
professors, four had one, one department had two, and
one, three.

Sandler states, also, that as one moves up

the academic ladder, the proportion of women sharply
drops, for women do not move up as rapidly as men, and
they are generally excluded from the power structure and

124
125

Scott, op. cit., p. 5.

Sandra Archer Husbands, "Women's Place in
Higher Education?,” School Review, February 1960,
p. 267.

108
tend to receive lower compensation than men in compar­
able ranks.
The sex differential varies according to types
of institutions.

Weidman and Weidman write that, when

the highest degree is held constant, women in both
colleges and universities are less likely than men to
hold the rank of professor, and that "this sex differen­
tial is much more pronounced for universities than it
is for colleges."

127

Sexton claims that academic women

constitute between a fifth and a quarter of teaching
staff; they are underrepresented in the faculties of the
major universities and high prestige colleges and overrepresented in small colleges and community colleges.

128

Wasserman finds only 6.6 percent of women faculty
members at the financially best endowed American universities.

129

In her review of the literature, Benoit

states that the National Educational Association's 1966
study reveals that faculty women working in universities,
excluding colleges, did not hold top academic ranks of
126

Bernice Sandler, "Sex Discrimination at the
University of Maryland," a report prepared for the
Women's Equity Action League, Fall 1969.
127
128
129

Weidman and Weidman, op. cit., p. 6.
Sexton, op. cit., p. 121.

Elga Wasserman, Arie Y. Lewin, and Linda H.
Bleiweis, eds.. Women in Academia; Evolving Policies
Toward Equal Opportunities {New York; Praeger, 1975),
pp. 1-2.

109
associate and full professors as often as did men.
However, Benoit points out, in a contrasting study
examining the academic ranks of a sample drawn from the
National Register of Scientists of men and women natural
and social scientists shows no significant sex differences in academic ranks.

130

Astin and Hirsch find

the percentage of women among full professors to be
smallest in the most prestigious universities and tends
to rise with the declining prestige of the university.
Moreover, the percentage is drastically smaller in
131
private than in public universities and colleges.
The sex differential varies somewhat according
to academic discipline and marital status.

According to

Graham, women achieve the status of full professor at a
slower rate than men with the average lag varying from
two to five years in the biosciences and up to ten years
in the social sciences.

132

In the field of education,

Weidman and Weidman report that holding degree constant,
while both men and women professors of education are
more likely to have a higher rank than their counter­
parts in universities, women professors of education in
130

Sallye Starks Benoit, "Job Satisfaction Among
Faculty Women in Higher Education in the State Univer­
sities of Louisiana,” Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana
State University, 1976, p. 11.
131
132

Astin and Hirsch, op. cit., p. 119.
Graham, "Women in Academe," p. 1285.

110
colleges holding a doctorate other than the Ph.D. are
slightly more likely to hold the rank of professor than
men, and even than women Ph.D.'s who are also teaching
m

..
133
colleges.
Numerous reports have investigated the relation­

ship between marital status and academic rank.
finds in her study a marital status difference.

Graham
She

comments:
Considering data on women for all fields
combined, the single women lead the married
ones by five to ten years.
At any given
time, 10 to 20 percent more of the single
than married women have achieved full
professor status.134
Simon, Clark and Tift write that unmarried women are
more likely to be represented in the associate and full
professor ranks than are married women who are more
likely to be represented in the lower ranks of research
associates, lecturers and instructors.

135

Promotion
Disproportionate treatment of faculty women can
be documented once they are hired.

As pointed out in

Opportunities for Women in Higher Education, whether
women will have an equal opportunity to obtain merit

^■^Weidman and Weidman, op. cit., p. 6.
Graham, op. cit., p. 1285.
135

Simon, Clark and Tift,

op. cit., p. 353.

Ill
increases and promotions is the big question after she
obtains a position.

13 6

Schlossberg maintains that

academic women take about twice as long as men to move
up the academic ladder.

137

In an earlier report,

Lindsey Harmon discusses one study that showed that 90
percent of the men with Ph.D.'s and at least twenty
years of academic experience had become full professors,
and only half of the women with the same qualifications
had earned the rank of full professor.

138

Differential utilization of faculty women is
explained, to some extent, by Wasserman who argues that
in the academic job market, men have had to compete
mostly with other males rather than with the total pool
of doctorate recipients.

Wasserman suggests that:

This may explain why efforts to eliminate
inequities and to encourage hiring and promo­
tion without regard to sex or race are now
being characterized as "discrimination"
against white males. Even if a woman is
hired to a faculty position, it is very
likely that she will encounter a struggle
when it comes to promotion.139

136

Opportunities for Women in Higher Education,
op. cit., p. 121.
137

Schlossberg, op. cit., p. 258.

138

Lindsey Harmon, "Careers of Ph.D.'s Academic
Versus NonAcademic: A Second Report on Follow-Up of
Doctorate Cohorts 1935-1960,'' publication 1577
(Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science, 1968).
139

Wasserman, op. cit., p. 7.

112
The differential varies according to field..
Benoit discusses a 1968 study of science doctorates
which found that the small proportion of women in the
natural sciences tended to obtain promotions equal to
their male counterparts.

Yet, a greater proportion of

women in the social sciences were found to obtain promo­
tions less frequently than men, even though a high
concentration of women has been in the field over the
years.Frazier

states that in sociology estimations

are that 90 percent of the men with Ph.D.'s and twenty
years of experience have obtained the rank of full
professor, whereas women with identical qualifications
barely have obtained that rank.

141

Using data from the

University of California statewide and from the Berkeley
campus, Astin and Hirsch document that promotion rates
for males and females on a statewide basis were 20.1
percent of the men, compared with 9.3 percent of the
women who were assistant professors in October 1976, and
who were promoted to associate professor in July 1977.
Also, 14.4 percent of the men and 9.8 percent of the
women who were associate professors in October 1976 were
promoted to full professors.

140
141
142

142

The researchers

Benoit, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
Frazier, op. cit., p. 163.
Astin and Hirsch, op. cit., pp. 128-129.

113
indicate that more encouraging are the Berkeley data
relating to promotions effective July 197 5 and July
197 6 combined, which showed that 15.5 percent of the men
and 10.1 percent of the women assistant professors were
promoted to associate professors, while, among associate
professors, 14.6 percent of men and 14.0 percent of
women associate professors were promoted to full
professors.

143

A number of sources have suggested that often­
times nebulous and somewhat subjective factors determine
promotion and advancement.

Hawkins claims that, other

than publication, no objective criteria exist for
evaluating a faculty member for promotion.

It is a

matter of such subjective criteria as being compatible,
and having acceptable lifestyles and personal relations
with those of the tenured members of the department.
Hawkins sees women as being disadvantaged in this
subjective area.

144

A U.S. district judge in New

Hampshire upheld his earlier ruling that Christine
Sweeney was the object of sex bias by Keene State
College when it failed to promote her to full professor
in 1974.

Judge Hugh H. Brown, in upholding his earlier

ruling, said that:

144

Ruth R. Hawkins, "The Odds Against Women,"
Change, November/December 1969, p. 36.

114
Mrs. Sweeney had proved she was qualified for
promotion and that male professors with "no
greater qualifications" had been promoted
ahead of her . . . .
But for her sex, she
would have been promoted in academic year
1974-75.145
Scott maintains that performance and merit are only two
of the numerous factors that are used to determine
advancement in most hierarchies.

In comparison to

other factors used in promotion deliberations, perform­
ance and merit may have little importance.

She proposes

that women entering the world of higher education must
quickly realize "that professional advancement is something that must be sought, seized, and retained."

146

Loeb et al. note that:
As the higher education job market con­
stricts still more, as a result of declining
college enrollment and budgetary stringency,
it is entirely likely that promotion stan­
dards will become even higher. Thus, women
who are currently being promoted more slowly
than are similarly qualified men may as a
result face even stiffer s t a n d a r d s . ^ 4 7
Criteria for Promotion
Another alleged cause of the lower rewards for
women is that women professionals are, on the average,

145Ibid.
146
147

Scott, op. cit., p. 34.

James W. Loeb, Marianne Feber and Helen Lowry,
"The Effectiveness of Affirmative Action," Journal of
Higher Education 49, no. 3 (1978):227.

115
less productive than men.

Therefore, productivity, an

important criteria for promotions, must be carefully
considered when examining differential utilization of
faculty women.

Sexton reports on a study of the academic

marketplace late in the fifties and concludes that women
scholars are not taken seriously.

Not only are they

discriminated against by college men, but even college
women demonstrate prejudice against academic women and
what they produce.

It was found in one study that, when

college women were given sets of articles in various
professional fields authored by three males and three
females and when the author's names were switched, the
college women rated those articles bearing the names of
male authors higher than when the same articles bore the
names of women authors.

As Sexton points out, "Even

articles on homemaking and dietetics were rated higher
when they bore the name of a male author."

148

A number of investigators find that, as a whole,
women scholars are not as productive as men.

Weidman

and Weidman note that women's productivity level is lower
than their male counterparts.

148
149

149

Centra's findings

Sexton, op. cit., pp. 126-127.
Weidman and Weidman, op. cit., p. 2.

116
document the average number of articles published by
male scholars as fifteen and nine for women scholars.

150

Other factors examined by researchers are the
relationships between scholarly productivity and marital
status and childrearing and scholarly productivity.
Controlling for sex, Weidman's findings show that
married women with the Ph.D. have a tendency to be more
productive than single women, and single women holding
the Ed.D. or other doctorate are more productive than
their married c o u n t e r p a r t s . S i m i l a r findings by
Astin reveal that the scholarly productivity of single
and married women shows married women to be more produc­
tive.

Astin points out that:

One cannot conclude from this investiga­
tion that the careers of single women are
more like those of men than those of married
women, nor can one conclude that the lower
status of academic women results from
marital and family constraints.152
Examining the relationship between childbearing and
faculty women's scholarly productivity, Hamovitch and
Morgenstern find that, although women faculty publish
somewhat less than men, no evidence exists to indicate

150Centra, loc. cit.
151
Weidman and Weidman, op. cit., pp. 7-8.
152

Astin and Hirsch, loc. cit.

117
that childrearing is related to the number of publications of women faculty members.

153

Some researchers have attempted to assess the
desirability and importance of productivity in the
academic world, particularly as it affects students.
Astin and Bayer conclude that productivity is an
important characteristic in the academic world and is a
critical issue in the reward structure.

154

Some evi­

dence has been found that at institutions where faculty
publish a great deal and are highly visible in terms of
placing emphasis on productivity and research, students
are no more likely than students at other institutions
of higher learning to indicate that they believe the
155
institution cares about them as individuals.
Accord­
ing to Astin and Bayer:
. . . Institutions may be perpetuating an
academic reward system that is dysfunctional
to students and could well become destructive
to society in that it promotes competitive­
ness, discontent, and withdrawal from the
world of intellect and scholarship.156

153

William Hamovitch and Richard D. Morgenstern,
"Children are the Productivity of Academic Women,"
Journal of Higher Education XLVIII (November/December
1977):633.
154
Astin and Bayer, op. cit., pp. 101-118.

155ibid.
156Ibid.

118
Focusing upon institutional factors that affect
scholarly productivity, Astin argues that the important
correlates of scholarly productivity for both faculty
members of both sexes are quality of graduate training
institutions, field of specialization, and type of
institution of current employment.

Important predictors

for published articles and published books are area of
specialization.

Faculty women in the biological and

physical sciences publish more articles, whereas faculty
women in humanities publish more books.

157

Teaching Effectiveness
The literature reveals a number of studies
indicating that, as a whole, faculty women tend to be
more interested in teaching than in research.

Eckert

and Slechlen report in their findings sex differential
according to duties preferred.

Faculty women give more

of their time to teaching and to services to student
groups, and faculty men devote more time to research
activities, committee work and off-campus projects.

For

example, according to the study, 63 percent of the
women, as compared with 36 percent of the men, report no
time spent on research or scholarly work.

The study

also demonstrates that more women want to devote still

157

Astin and Hirsch, loc. cit.

119
more time to teaching and to counseling students.

158

Jessie Bernard's study found that faculty women pre­
ferred to be teachers and were more concerned with
students, while faculty men preferred professional peers
159
and were less responsive to students.
Churgin notes
that "when queried, women seem more to favor the
personal satisfaction they get from their academic rela­
tionships with students, whereas men are more inclined
to prefer the opportunity for research.
Salaries
Women are not only underrepresented on univer­
sity and college faculties, but of those employed,
their salaries are, on the average,
of male faculty members.

lower than salaries

LaSort believes the question

of equitable salary to be more crucial than that of
tenure and promotion.

161

Along the same line, Wasserman

et al, support the contention that the most obvious and

158

Ruth E. Eckert and John E. Slechlen,
"Academic Women," in Athena Theodore, ed., The Profes­
sional Women:
Trends and Prospects (Cambridge:
Schenkmen Publishing Company, 1971), pp. 350-351.
159
160

Hawkins, op. cit., p. 34.
Churgin, op. cit., p. 66.

^ ^ L a S o r t , op. cit., p. 266.

120
and easily documented type of discrimination is salary
differential.162
A number of national studies have pointed out
differential pay schedules for women and men.

One of

the most comprehensive studies was conducted by the
National Education Association, which showed that women
faculty were paid less in the aggregate than men.

The

researchers, Alan Bayer and Helen Astin, provide data to
support the existence of salary differentials in both
beginning and later academic positions.

163

Benoit

interprets this study and points out that Bayer and
Astin conclude that:
Across all work setting, field, and rank,
women received lower salaries than their
male colleagues with equivalent work experi­
ence; however, these differences were less
in the social sciences than in the natural
sciences.
Of considerable concern to investigators have
been the difficulty or proving discrimination even when
salary differentials seem apparent and are documented.
On the basis of the 1969 Carnegie Commission Survey,
Astin and Bayer and Elizabeth Scott have conducted
studies using complex analysis of appropriate data to
determine and explain salary differences in terms of
162
163

Wasserman et al., loc. cit.
Alan and Bayer, op. cit., pp. 101-118.

16^Bernard, op. cit., pp. 13-14.

121
discrimination, or more objective factors such as the
smaller percentage of women faculty who earned the Ph.D.
Using a linear regression equation with thirty-two
predictor variables, including rand and achievement,
Astin and Bayer find that after controlling for all the
other variables, average residual difference of $1,000
existed in favor of men.
In her study conducted for the Carnegie Commis­
sion, Elizabeth Scott explores sex differences in
salaries in the various types of institutions and in the
various fields.

Her analysis indicates that, for all

major groups of fields and types of institutions,
evidence of a pervasive pattern of lower salary for
women are present that is not explained by the predicator v a r i a b l e . I n

their study at Stoney Brook,

Tanor and Coser argue that women in fields with rela­
tively high proportion of women are more likely to have
lower than predicted salaries than women in fields where
there is a lower proportion of women, and women of high
rank are more likely than women of low rank to have

^ 5Alan Bayer and Helen S. Astin, "Sex Dif­
ferences in Academic Rank and Salary Among Science
Doctorates in Teaching," Journal of Human Resources 3
(Spring 1968):191-200.
^ ^ Opportunities for Women in Higher Education,
op. cit., pp. ll5-116.

122
lower than predicted salaries than women in fields where
there is a lower proportion of women, and women of high
rank are more likely than women of low rank to have
lower than expected salaries.

X67

In the field of educa­

tion, an analysis of sex differences in salary among men
and women professors of educators reveals clear and
consistent differentials unfavorable to women.

At all

ranks in the field of education, women professors earn
less than their male counterparts.

168

Loeb, Ferber and Lowry document that after a
number of merit and experience indices are accounted for,
approved affirmative action programs have failed to
decrease residual salary differences existing between
men and women.

Recognizing that inflation has reduced

the value of the dollar amount in real terms, the
researchers argue that the dollar amount is still
approximately the same in 1974 and 1969.

In their

discussion, they conclude that:
With academic rank and department controlled
by matching, with departmental salary,
experience, and merit differences controlled
statistically, salary differences between

167

Judith M. Tanor and Rose L. Coser, "Pockets
of 'Poverty' in the Salaries of Academic Women," AAUP
Bulletin, March 1978, p. 28.
168t. . ,
Ibid.

123
males and females persist at an approximate
level of $100.00 per month on a nine month
contract.i*>9
Tuckman and Tuckman report on salary differences
favoring men in two-year institutions.

Among the

various categories examined, Tuckman notes that the
largest difference is observed in the category of women
part-time teachers hoping for full-time positions.

In

that category, women are paid substantially less on an
hourly basis than men.

For example, the investigator

finds that a $4.00 hourly salary differential is
substantial.^ ®
Greenfield denotes certain barriers that are
both impeding efforts to end salary discrimination
against underpaid women and keeping the problem within
the area of statisticians and away from the courts.
Greenfield states:
The courts have conditioned relief for
such discrimination upon clear proof that the
work of men and women is substantially equal,
and the work of any one profession is fre­
quently different than that of his or her
colleague.
Second, courts have not yet taken
advantage of available statistical methods to
make meaningful comparisons between similar
but unequal p o s i t i o n s . 1^1
169
170
171

Loeb, Ferber and Lowry, op. cit., p. 225.
Tuckman and Tuckman, op., ext., p. 73.

Ester Greenfield, "From Equal to Equivalent
Pay: Salary Discrimination in Academia,11 Journal of Law
and Education 6 (January 1977):41.

124
Supporting the argument that women with the
same qualifications as men receive less p a y r Leppaluato
examines the HEW investigation at Teachers College at
Columbia Univeristy and reports that the findings show
the average compensation for both sexes in the three
academic ranks as:
professors,

$500.00 less for women assistant

$7 00.00 less for women associate professors

and $1,000.00 less for women full professors.

Leppaluato

concludes that males with doctorates and twenty years of
academic experience will be full professors in 90 percent
of the cases, while only half of the women with similar
172
qualifications will be full professors.
Also
examining rank differences, Frazier reports on one study
that found the disparity between women and men in the
full professor's rank to be $1,400.00.

She concludes:

It seems that the longer a women remains in
higher education, the greater her rank and
her professional experience, the more likely
she is to experience discrimination.173
Centra indicates that women's income from all sources
ranges from an average of $16,400.00 when they have
from five to six years of experience to $21,800.00 when
they have twenty-two to twenty-three years of experience.
Men's income ranges from $18,700.00 to $27,000.00 for

172
173

Leppaluato, op. cit., p. 4.
Frazier and Sadker, op. cit., p. 165.

125
similar length of service.

174

In their investigation,

Johnson and Stafford observe that salaries of faculty
women start out at slightly less than male faculty
members and then decline.

The investigators contend

that, "over a thirty-five year work life, roughly twofifths of the wage disadvantage is attributable to
discrimination and three-fifths to human capital
differences. "^7^
A salary study, conducted at Southern Methodist
University and focusing on two aspects of the internal
labor market in universities in determining sex discrimi'
nation in different departments in the entrance rates
and policies on promotion and salary increases, shows
that individual women's salaries are 5 to 50 percent
less than the average for comparable men.'*’76
Several arguments have proposed that male
attitudes have been a contributory factor to the
problem.

According to Moses Young, an American Associa­

tion of University Women (AAUW) report found that
antagonistic attitudes of male decision-makers within
174

Centra, op. cit., p. 49.
17 5
G. E. Johnson and P. P. Stafford, "The Earn­
ings and Promotion of Women Faculty," American Economic
Review 64 (December 1974):888-903.
176
Barbara Reagin and Betty J. Maynard, "Sex
Discrimination in Universities: An Approach Through
Internal Labor Market Analysis," AAUP Bulletin 60 (March
1974):13-21.

126
the university community were the most significant
barriers for women in higher education.

These attitudes

are not generally overtly expressed, but come into play
when salary and other rewards of the academic system are
determined.

177

.
The question of commitment sometimes

comes up during discussions of salary inequities.

For

example, as Leppauluato contends, the myth that educa­
tion is wasted on women persists, despite the fact that
the evidence clearly demonstrates that the more educa­
tion a woman obtains, the more likely she is to work.
Ninety-one percent of the women with doctorates are
employed.

17 8

Centra further documents that women

averaged 9 percent of their time in part-time employment
in contrast to 1 percent for men and were unemployed 7.5
percent of the years compared to less than 1 percent for
men.

17 9

Other Contributions of Faculty
Women to the Profession
The literature reveals that in addition to
their publishing women serve on important committees and
are needed models for their students.
177

Margaret Moses Young, "Sex Discrimination in
Higher Education," The Civil Liberties Review, July/
August 1978, pp. 41-42.
178
179

Leppauluato, op. cit., p. 4.
Centra, op. cit., p. 49.

127
Committee Appointments
Two reports attempt to account for the fact that
faculty women are not adequately represented on commit­
tees that affect their employment and career opportuni­
ties.

Scott investigates committee appointments at the

State University of New York at Buffalo and reports that
executive decisions determine many committee appoint­
ments, thereby making prejudice against women in
authoritarian roles easily avoided.

At the University,

Scott finds that five women serve on four of the nine
faculty standing committees.

No woman chairs a commit­

tee, and no woman appears on such committees as Economic
Status, Educational Planning and Policy, and the SUNY/B
Council.

Women serve on the Faculty Grievance Committee

because they insisted on representation.

In fact, the

first grievances of the newly formed Faculty Grievance
Committee came from a woman faculty member who cornplained that the committee had no woman represented.

180

In another report, labeled "Survey of Women on
Committees at New Jersey Colleges and Universities," it
is documented that, overall, women representation on
college committees is 23.4 percent, which is propor­
tionately relative to their representation on the New
Jersey faculties; that is, 22.5 percent.

180

Scott, op. cit., p. 8.

In some cases,

128
according to the data, women are underrepresented on
personal decision-making committees.

The report

stresses that women have a tendency to serve less on
crucial committees such as those affecting tenure and
promotion, and are more likely to be highly represented
on such committees as the library and bookstore com­
mittee.

For example, at University College at Rutgers,

although women represent 26.4 percent of the faculty,
there are no women represented on the Appointments and
Promotions Committee.

In the Seton Hall School of

Education, women comprise 40 percent of the Library
Committee, but only 11.1 percent of the Rank and Tenure
Committee.

181

Role Models
The paucity of role models points to another
contribution that faculty women can make to help
alleviate obstacles to women's career development.
Among undergraduate and graduate students, role models
have been found to be a strong predictor of success.
Frazier observes that schools of higher education must
concentrate on providing women role models for their

181

New Jersey; The Status of Women in Higher
Education, a survey by Committee W of the New Jersey
State Conference of the American Association of Univer­
sity Professors, April 1972, pp. 1-31.

129
students.

182

Tidball finds in her study a highly

significant positive correlation between the number of
faculty women at institutions and the number of women
who complete their programs and obtain their degrees.
She states that:
Most colleges and university environments
are relatively non-supportive of women
faculty and women students. Women faculty
are themselves affirming of women students,
just as men faculty are of men students, but
the small proportion of women faculty in
virtually all types of institutions assures
that the views of men faculty dominate the
institutional climate.183
In her work, Strommer makes the claim that the
small proportion of women faculty members, particularly
in tenured ranks, leaves few people to whom women
students can look to for needed guidance and encourage­
ment.

She emphasizes the numerous studies that have

explored reasons why women drop out of educational
programs leading to the doctoral degree in greater
percentages than men, and this researcher concludes that
women graduate students become discouraged by the few
faculty women in academe and drop out.

"Lack of role

models and discriminatory attitudes," cites Strommer,

182
183

Frazier and Sadker, op. cit., p. 168.

Elizabeth Tidball, "On Liberation and Compe­
tence,” Educational Record, Spring 1976, p. 373.

130
"are all significant factors."

184

Rossi stresses the

need for universities to move away from parochial con­
cerns of immediate status payoffs and the need to share
with faculty women in setting goals that will encourage
185
young women in making greater social contributions.
There has been a growing trend among educators
and researchers to recognize and point out the rela­
tionship between role models and students, and the
potential impact faculty women have to motivate stu­
dents.

Scott indicates that,

in today's college, women

do not see enough successful women, or even women
treated as equals by their male colleagues.

She points

out that discussion of role models by Cynthia Epstein
reveals that the paucity of role models for women
students can result in possible repercussions, and the
lack of motivational models in the university has become
a matter of grave concern.

Describing some of these

possible repercussions, Schlossberg contends that bright,
achievement-oriented women students may find it to be
more difficult to succeed when there are few visible

184

Diane Strommer, "Wither Thou Goest:
Feminism
' and the Education of Women," Journal of NAWDAC 39
(Winter 1976):52.
185
186

Rossi, op. cit., p. 78.
Scott, op. cit., p. 5.

131
role models.

187

Elizabeth Almquist and Shirley Angrist

propose that the importance of role models lies in
their explication of a lifestyle that combines career
and family.

In order to become motivated to the commit­

ment of such an adult lifestyle, students must have some
idea of what such a lifestyle entails.

Therefore, women

faculty members, among other things, can serve as models
of this lifestyle.

188

Graham suggests that, in addition

to the problem women students have of not having enough
visible faculty women occupying positions of importance,
women students often experience "internal ambivalences"
because of the difficulty in finding models to fit the
pattern of being ordinary and still being able to marry,
rear children, and handle a responsible career.

189

Use of Full Potential of Women Faculty
Federal Intervention
The review of the literature reveals that, while
it is difficult to discern the real areas of discrimina­
tion that serve as barriers to utilization of full
potential of faculty women, the federal government has

187

Schlossberg, op. cit., p. 260.

188

Elizabeth Almquist and Shirley S. Angrist,
"Role Models Influences on College Women's Aspirations,"
in Athena Theodore, ed., The Professional Woman
(Cambridge: Schenkman, 1§71).
189

Graham, op. cit., p. 1286.

132
attempted to initiate checks on employment discrimina­
tion.

In March 1972, both by statute and executive

order, the federal government has intervened on behalf
of academic women.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 was amended to cover educational institutions.
Reasons for the amendment as discussed by the Congres­
sional Committee are presented by Crim who maintains
that the Committee concluded that, in the field of
education, discrimination against women, is as pervasive
as in any other areas of employment.

Although women

have been invited to participate in the process as
students, they have not been given serious consideration
as prospective professional employees.

Even those who

are hired, the Committee observes, have not been
elevated to positions equal to those of their male
190
counterparts.
The Higher Education Act of 197 2 under
Title IX states that;
No person in the United States shall, on the
basis of sex, be excluded from participation
in, benefits of, or be subjected to discri­
mination under any educational program or
activity.
The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Educa­
tion indicates that, based on their historic record,
many colleges and universities are inadequate in meeting

190
191

Crim, op. cit., pp. 14-15.
Astin and Hirsch, op. cit., pp. 129-130.

133
test of providing equal opportunity on the basis of sex.
Policies on employment, promotion, and pay show evident
discrimination, and reforms had to be generated from
outside the university largely through the efforts of
the federal government, instead of through efforts of
the educational institutions themselves.

The Council

concludes that, "These institutions have impoverished
its own performance by the neglect of large pools of
192
potential academic performance."
Reports reflect mixed conclusions as to the
effectiveness of affirmative action.

Hornig contends

that affirmative action bypasses the underlying problem
of attitudes, and serves only as a facilitative tool to
equalize opportunities for employment.

193

In an examina

tion of important factors both impeding efforts to
eliminate sex discrimination in academia and those
facilitating such efforts, Leppauluato suggests that
current attitudes and behavior of women, administrative
leaders, as well as governmental agencies are largely
responsible for lack of change in present conditions.
On the negative side, Leppauluato asserts that sex
discrimination is still a socially acceptable prejudice.
192Ibid.
193

Lillie S. Hornig, "Affirmative Action Through
Affirmative Attitudes," Women in Academia; Evolving
Policies Toward Equal Opportunities (New York: Praeger,
1975), p. 9.

134
For the most part, women are either unaware of their
disadvantages or they simply accept their situation as
inevitable.

Men, especially those in leadership posi­

tions such as academic administrators, may articulate an
understanding, but their behaviors belie such under­
standing.

In terms of the progress made by govern­

mental action, Leppauluato points out that one problem
has been the formulation of laws that fail to be all
inclusive.

For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Act,

while forbidding sex discrimination in employment,
failed to include faculty in educational institutions.
Title VI, while forbidding discrimination in federally
assisted programs, excluded sex.

Professional, execu­

tive and administrative employees are excluded in the
Equal Pay Act.

Only by Executive Order of the Presi­

dent, which forbids discriminatory practices by federal
contractors, explains Leppauluato, is sex discrimination
checked in higher educational institutions.

Women's

groups and other faculty and staff members in academe
have not been totally satisfied with monitoring efforts
on the part of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, the agency responsible for enforcement in
college and university systems.

Leppauluato contends

that studies and such evidence as produced by such
Congressional hearings as the one conducted by Repre­
sentative Edith Green of Oregon have exploded the myth

135
that conditions are improving for women.

In fact, these

reports indicate that academic women *s position has been
deteriorating.

On the positive side, however,

Leppauluato sees women as beginning to demand equal
opportunities, and investigations by the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare have made academic women
more aware of inequities in the system by the types of
questions generated.

Such changes as equal pay for

equal jobs and equal opportunity for employment should
come as a result of more anti-discrimination policies
and programs are implemented and as HEW continues to
withhold government contract money from any institution
failing to comply with Executive Order 11375 as
amended.

194
In conjunction with Title IX and the DHEW regu­

lations, the Women's Educational Equity Act of 1974,
which states that "present educational programs fre­
quently limit the full participation of all individuals
in American society," is also valuable for promoting
strategies of interventions ultimately leading to the
maximization of women's employment potential.

195

Young

reports that little has changed for women in higher
194
195

Leppauluato, op. cit., pp. 1-8.

J. T. Wirtenberg and Charles Y. Nakamara,
"Education:
Barrier or Book to Changing Occupational
Roles of Women?," Journal of Social Issues 32 (1976).

136
education since the enactment of Title VII amendments.
She supports her conclusion with the results of a recent
study of the status of women in six hundred U.S.
colleges and universities by the American Association of
University Women (AAUW), which illustrates that since
1973 no significant gains have been made in the percen­
tage of women holding academic jobs or tenure faculty
positions.

According to the report, one of the most

significant barriers for academic women is the attitudes
of male decision-makers within the university.

Such

attitudes are not usually overtly expressed, the report
indicates, but are factors that influence promotion,
tenure, or other rewards of the academic system.

196

Inadequate follow-up is a major problem with the current
affirmative action program, observe Leob, Ferber and
Lowry.

These researchers conclude that one solution to

the relative ineffectiveness of the current requirements
might be increasing government follow-up and monitoring.
Affirmative action programs should be redesigned to
build in incentives aimed toward results, such as equity
in hiring, pay, and rank, rather than procedures.

197

^■9**Young, op. cit., p. 42.
197
Loeb, Ferber and Lowry, op. cit., p. 227.

137
Abramson accuses the agency of laxed enforcement and
calls for strong government presence.

198

Recently, the Sloan Commission on Government and
Higher Education, a 22-member commission created more
than two years ago by Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of New
York, for the second time has called for the establish­
ment of a single federal agency to enforce all antidiscrimination laws.

The commission argues that major

sources of confusion are the diffusion of respon­
sibilities of the seventeen federal laws and executive
orders relating to equal opportunity to be enforced, and
the federal courts with ultimate jurisdiction.

Also,

the fact that Congressional legislation has not provided
clear standards or power for these agencies.

Variation

in compliance standards and enforcement procedures and
considerable duplication of efforts on all sides result
in excessive expenses for higher education and the
government.

The Commission concludes that, to have a

lasting impact on our higher educational institutions,
affirmative action must be managed by the people who
make the decision, the faculty and the administration.
Therefore, the Commission recommends:

198

Joan Abramson, "Measuring Success, or What­
ever Happened to Affirmative Action?,” Civil Rights
Digest (Winter 1977).

138
The creation of a single consolidated
agency for the enforcement of all equal
opportunity laws in higher education, which
we call the Council of Equal Opportunity in
Higher Education.
It would be an independent
regulatory agency within the new Department
of Education, under the Secretary; it would
provide incentives for effective self­
regulation; and as much as possible, it
would unify standards and consolidate
enforcement.1
These reports have indicated restrictive barriers
imposed upon women in the academic world.

Other insti­

tutional barriers include an overall modus operandus of
these institutions believed by a number of investigators
to be masculine oriented.

Also,

investigators consis­

tently pointed out that occupational stratification by
sex serves as an institutional barrier.
Masculine-Or i ented
Institutions
Several arguments provide information as to the
kind of treatment women faculty members might receive in
institutions believed to be masculine oriented.
Dinerman raises the question,

"Is there in fact some­

thing masculine about higher education?"2®0

This author

states that faculty women face a credibility gap, based
on student reactions which are different toward materials

199

Malcolm 6. Scully, "Sloan Panel Reiterates
Call for Single-Anti-Bias Agency," The Chronicle of
Higher Education XX (March 24, 19 8 0 ) ;9-ll.
200 .
^
Dinerman, op. cit., p. 256.

139
presented by a woman.

Students see such presentations

as less valid, less authoritative, and less convincing
as identical material presented by a male.

Dinerman

points out that, often, women faculty members are
restricted to teaching stable subjects— that is,
subjects based on long accepted principles rather than
controversial or conflicting interpretations.

"The

problem lies with a student body raised on a cultural
conception of the feminine roles which prevents any
positive response to a female scholar," concludes
201
Dinerman.

Disproportionate treatment of married women is
traced to academic careers favoring married men.

For

example, Hochschild examines a detailed study by the
Carnegie Commission and reports that the academic career
is based on the image of the traditional married male
and his traditional wife.

According to Hochschild, the

family is a hidden element in the common description of
an ideal academic career, and serves a function for the
university.

The academic career subcontracts work to

the family with men and women having different ties.
For men, the chain of experiences that seems to anchor
the traditional academic career includes, among other
things, building a reputation while still young,

^^Dinerman, op. cit., p. 256.

140
hoarding scarce time while minimizing family life by
leaving major family responsibilities to their wives.
For married women Ph.D.'s, on the other hand, about
twenty-eight hours per week are spent by them performing
household tasks.

At the time that their married counter­

parts are concerned with making a contribution and
building reputations as scholars, women frequently are
tied to the home bearing and rearing children.

202

Traditionally Male Fields
Evidence pointing to the existence of occupa­
tional stratification by sex has become increasingly
prominent in literature concerning the role of academic
women.

Wirtenberg and Nakamara, for example, contend

that the confinement of women to traditional women's
occupation has been the goal of higher educational
institutions.

203

Yet, even in their own domain women

have been losing ground.

According to Dinerman, the

immediate outlook for women in university-level teaching
is grim indeed.

They fail to make any substantial

^ ^ A r l i e Russell Hochschild, "Inside the Clock­
work of Male Careers,” Women and the Power to Change
(New York; McGraw Hi11^ 1975), pp. 47-49.
203
T. Jeana Wirtenberg and Charles Y. Nakamara,
"Education: Barrier or Boon to Changing Occupational
Roles of Women?," Journal of Social Issues 32, no. 3
(1976):165.

141
inroads into traditionally male fields, and they are
actually experiencing a decline in their former strong­
holds as men continue to invade educational areas which
have long been considered their province.

For example,

schools of social work and nursing, to list a few, have
been gaining status by replacing their deans with men.
Also, men continue to occupy large numbers of highranking positions in traditionally women's colleges.

204

The pattern of few women occupying faculty
positions in traditionally male fields appears to have
its origins, at least to some degree,

in the relative

reluctance of women students to major in these fields.
Reasons for such reluctance are suggested.

205

For example,

female students may be discouraged from entering tradi­
tionally male fields because of the sex composition of
the faculties, which may give students the impression
that women have little chance of success in these areas.
Women may also experience actual discouragement from
faculty members in leading research universities, who
tend to be overwhelmingly male and have prestigious
reputations,
colleges.

206

204
205

than are faculty members in liberal arts
The other side of the problem is explored

Dinerman, op. c i t . , p. 263.

Opportunities for Women in Higher Education,
op. c i t . , p. 68.

142
by Peng and Jaffe who provide some information about
women who do enter male-dominated fields.

Based upon

data drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of the
High School Class of 1972, these researchers examined
sixteen variables, which they classified into several
categories:

family background, high school experience,

academic ability, life-goal orientation, and extent of
education planned that might possibly influence women to
enter male-dominated fields in higher education.

Their

findings indicate that those women found in maledominated fields have higher academic ability, and they
were exposed to more science and mathematics in high
, . 207
school.
Current research indicates that women are
making progress in entering natural sciences, engineer208
ing, economics and other traditionally male fields.
The Carnegie Commission Report notes that the College of
Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley
is making an effort to attract women students.

While

the national average is 1 percent, 2 percent of
Berkeley's enginnering students are women.

The Los

Angeles campus of the University of California and
207

Samuel S. Peng and Jay Jaffe, "Women Who
Enter Male-Dominated Fields of Study in Higher Educa­
tion," American Educational Research Journal 16 (Summer
1979):286.
208

Astin and Hirsch, op. cit., p. 130.

143
Stanford University have initiated similar programs.

In

On Campus With W o m e n , researchers report that the
National Science Foundation (NSF) found that from
1974-7 5 gains in full-time employment for women faculty
members in science and engineering were more than three
times the gains of men.

Also, the report illustrates

that a 6 percent increase was registered by women
compared to a 2 percent increase for men.

However, even

with this high rate of increase, the proportion of women
having full-time employment as scientists and engineers
in institutions of higher education was still only 15
percent, an increase of less than one percentage point
from 197 4 to 1975.

In mechanical engineering, the

proportion varied from less than one percent to more
than 24 percent of sociologists.

209

Additional Sex Specific Factors
Affecting Career Opportunities
of Women Faculty
Women who reach educational levels and become
professional participants in institutions of higher
learning often still find themselves subjected to addi­
tional sex specific factors that may or may not impede
their careers.

The literature reveals several broad

categories which include:

209

acceptance by associates of

On Campus With Women, loc. cit.

144
women faculty,

job mobility,

job satisfaction, and

personality characteristics of women faculty members.
Acceptance by Associates
of Women Faculty
A number of reports indicate that women occupy
a disadvantaged position in their interactions with
colleagues.

Frazier and Sadker write:

It has been found that academic women do not
enjoy full colleagial relationship with male
faculty members with whom they work and that
these male colleagues, responding to sex
status rather than occupational status, deny
her experiences that might further her
professional development.2^-®
According to Lewin and Duncan, social barriers do exist
for women.

211

White observes the difficulty of women in

attaining challenging interaction with male colleagues,
and sums up the situation by stating how difficult it is
for women to gain the informal signs of recognition and
belonging within the institution.

212

Bryson, Bryson and

Johnson indicate in their study that job satisfaction
with the regard of colleagues is sex related.

Younger

women who are married express the greater dissatisfaction

210

Frazier, op. cit., p. 165.

211

Arie Lewin and Linda Duncan, "Women in
Academia," Science 3 (September 1971):892.
212

Martha S. White, "Psychological and Social
Barriers to Women in Science," Science 170 (October
1970):892.

145
in this measure.

214

Summing up the situation,

Richardson states:
Even the least radical of women, then, is apt
to notice that she has spent much time and
energy training for a job in which she will
not be welcome, amidst colleagues whose
values are unconsciously designed to
cripple h e r .
Other reports have dealt with female stereo­
types that adversely affect the full acceptance by
associates of women faculty members.

Such stereotypes

present an image of women that "is narrow in focus and
fail

to take into account complex psychological and

experimental variables."

216

Such stereotypes also

provide unrealistic models of interaction between men
and women faculty members.

According to Berry and

Kushner, a popular stereotype is the Queen Bee concept,
the image of the hard-headed, two-fisted woman
professional who has achieved success where others have
failed.

217

The Queen Bee is characterized as highly

competitive, allowed into the system as a token who must
cooperate uncompromisingly to remain in the system.

She

214

Betty Richardson, Sexism in Higher Education
(New York: The Seabury Press, 1974), p. 102.
215Ibid.
216

James Berry and Richard Kushner, “A Critical
Look at the Queen Bee Syndrome," Journal of NAWDAC,
Summer 1975, pp. 173-176.
217

ibia.

146
is rewarded highly for denigrating other women's efforts,
looking feminine, and thinking like a man.

The writers

sum up the characteristics of the Queen Bee:
Since she refuses to identify with other
women, the Queen Bee identifies with male
colleagues as her reference group . . . .
The Queen Bee does not, for the most part,
identify with men in the political sense,
but rather identifies with her male col­
leagues as equals with whom she happens to
share similar work experiences.218
In another commentary. The Community and Junior
College Journal has editorialized on other stereotypes
found in post-secondary institutions.

One such stereo­

type is the well-trained woman faculty member who has
learned to get along with associates and who appreciates
the value of teamwork, which she interprets as accepting
without question any task, from making the coffee to
taking notes.

For the women who resists playing this

assigned position on the decision-making team, other
plays could be used.

For example, the "Big Daddy/Little

Woman Syndrome," "Mother/Son Number," and the "Stag
Effect."

In the first model, the male professional

expects his female counterpart to conduct herself like a
dutiful wife toward a husband who spends important time
meeting the demands of a professional day.

He stresses

the demands and pressures of a decision, for example,
while the woman professional is expected to respond with
218Ibid., p. 175.

147
nurture and support.

The next model, employed only in

confidential situations, is based on the childhood
experience where the youngster coaxed his mother to pity
rather than punish him for any wrongdoing.

The profes­

sional women, then, is made to feel guilty for her part
in the relationship.

Either she has not measured up to

his expectations, or she is too guilty to disagree on
any decisions or blame him for any shortcomings.

The

last model, the Stag Effect, is used to underscore
innate differences between the two.

This model of

professional interaction simply excludes the woman
faculty member from channels of professional communica­
tion and from participating in extracurricular professional activities.

219

Such exclusionary behavior can

seriously handicap a woman's career options.

220

Frazier claims:
Women faculty members are denied easy social
access to and communications with publishers
and editors, who are usually male, and
frequently it is doing such social occasions
that requests to chair a panel or to write
an article or a book are m a d e . 2 2 1

219

Community and Junior College Journal,
December/January 1976, pp. 12-14.
220Ibid.
221

Frazier, op. cit., p. 165.

As

148
Job Mobility
Another barrier to employment and advancement
opportunities for faculty women is based on stereotypes
concerning women's attitudes toward work, particularly
regarding mobility constraints.

Richardson writes

about women seeking faculty positions stating that:
There is evidence that a woman's personal
life, especially her marital status, is
considered a relevant factor in her applica­
tion . . . .
For a woman, it is a substan­
tial advantage to be single . . . .
The
married woman is assumed to be subject to
her husband's whims, goals, and job
mobility.222
Astin informs us that male recruiters often operate on
the belief that, because of family commitments, married
women will not be interested in the job or able to make
a move.

223

These attitudes and practices are sometimes

fostered not only by recruiters and employers, but also
by faculty women themselves seeking positions.

As Astin

points out, the woman in our culture has been socialized
to follow her husband who is allowed to make his own
career decisions first.

224

However, such generalized

statements may be shattered by the facts.
222

In the same

Richardson, op. cit., p. 106.

223

Helen S. Astin, "Where Are All the Talented
Women?," in W. Todd Furniss and Patricia Alberg Graham,
eds., Women in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1974), pp. 95-109.
224Ibid.

149
report, Astin explains that the occupational and geo­
graphical mobility of women doctorates follows a pattern
similar to men with doctorates.

According to Astin:

Of the 1957 and 1958 women doctorates
. . . 45 percent had been with the same
employers since receiving the doctorate, and
an additional 30 percent had changed jobs
only once.
These figures are comparable
with the rates for men reported by Harmon
. . . who found that 52 percent of the men
in the 1955 doctoral cohort had stayed on
the same job for five years, and an addi­
tional 33 percent had changed jobs only
once.225
Advancement depends on women's ability to
receive merit increases and promotions on par with men.
However, the Carnegie Commission Report provides data
that show married women falling behind in academic
rewards because they take time off for family respon­
sibilities.

Also, women are taken advantage of because

they have less bargaining power.

Such constraints

include the woman's inability to move to another
college or university at some distance unless she can
convince her husband to move.

For men, their largest

salary increases may tend to come when they receive
attractive offers from other institutions.

Such an

offer is either accepted and the move is accomplished,
or based on such an offer, the professional male may be

225

Helen S. Astin, The Woman Doctorate in
America:
Origins, Career, and Family (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1969), p. §7.

150
able to convince his present institution to make a
counter offer.

Such negotiations are not possible for

a married woman unless it is clear that her husband is
willing to make a move.

The report concludes by stating

that "married women are not particularly likely to
receive unsolicited job offers involving geographical
moves, because of the assumption that they would not be
likely to accept."^^
It would seem reasonable to conclude from these
studies that generalized reports about women's position
in the faculty becomes part of the myth system when they
are used to make assumptions and decisions about faculty
women as a group.

However, it is usually necessary to

allow for individual differences no matter how true the
generalization appears.

As researchers remind us,

mobility constraints are changing.

It is not uncommon

for modern academic couples to give equal consideration
to the wife's employment status in the decisions that
might involve relocating.

As Astin concludes, " . . .

frequently the husband may decide to look for a job
after the wife has made a decision to relocate."

226

227

Opportunities for Women in Higher Education,
op. cit., pp. 121-122.
227

Astin, op. cit., p. 97.

151
Job Satisfaction
A number of investigators have examined job
satisfaction involving faculty members in institutions
of higher learning.

For example, Eckert, Stechlein and

Sagen argue that the three most common reasons for job
dissatisfaction among college faculty members are low
salaries, heavy workloads and overall working condi­
tions.

They also point out that the nature of the work

itself is the most common source of satisfaction and
teachers in four-year colleges are more satisfied than
junior college teachers.

228

drawn by other researchers.

Similar conclusions are
Crim reports that in his

study "faculty women see salary as their major source of
229
inequity with their male peers."
Other sources of
inequity as seen by faculty women include "being treated
fairly on tenure and promotion decisions, participating
on important committees and in decision-making."

230

Frazier and Sadker maintain that "once hired, women
should receive equal pay for equal rank and be promoted
on an equal basis with male faculty members."

231

228

R. E. Eckert, J. E. Stecklein, and H. B.
Saqen, "College Faculty Members View Their Jobs," AAUP
Bulletin 45 (1959):513-518.
229

Crim, op. cit., pp. 18-19.

230_,
..
Ibid.
231

Frazier and Sadker, op. cit., p. 168.

152
According to Benoit, a 1970 national sample of faculty
indicated that 63 percent of all women but only 28 per­
cent of all men earned less than $10,000.00 during an
academic year.

In addition, women showed less satisfac­

tion with their salaries and were more likely than their
male colleagues to express their dissatisfaction if they
were employed at universities than at two-year or fouryear colleges.

232

Studying faculty members in the

junior colleges, Cohen reports that the principal motiva­
tion and chief satisfaction of faculty members come from
their interaction with students.

233

In her review of the literature, Benoit finds
that in Herzberg's 1957 review of fourteen studies, six
revealed that women were more satisfied with their jobs
than men, three indicated that men were more satisfied,
and five studies showed no sex differences in job
satisfaction.

234

Benoit concludes in her study that

faculty women in her sample were dissatisfied with their
work to some extent.

When compared with other groups,

such as teachers, principals, nurses and secretaries,
faculty women in the state universities were least
232
233

Benoit, op. cit., p. 13.

Arthur M. Cohen, Work Satisfaction Among
Junior College Faculty Members, U.S., Educational
Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 081 426,
November, 1973.
234
Benoit, op. cit., pp. 25-26.

153
satisfied.

However, the women in the various disciplines

within the universities did not differ in their feelings
of job satisfaction.

Moreover, women with broader

teaching backgrounds, that is, who had teaching experi­
ence in other areas, such as elementary and secondary
institutions, were more satisfied than those women who
had taught only in institutions of higher education.
Administrators were more satisfied than non­
administrators, and administrators generally were more
satisfied than the teachers.

Also, those faculty

members who had published books were more satisfied than
those who had not published.

After analyzing and quan­

tifying environmental work elements affecting job
satisfaction of faculty women, Benoit concludes that
such internal factors as moral values, social service,
activity, achievement and creativity (in descending
order of importance) were the aspects of the job giving
the faculty women in her sample most satisfaction, and
such external factors as university policies and prac­
tices, advancement, compensation, supervision— human
relations, and supervision— technical (listed in
ascending order of importance) were aspects of the job
giving faculty women least satisfaction.

Basing her

conclusions on Herzberg's two-factor theory of job
satisfaction, Benoit's study confirms the theory that,
while improvement of external factors may reduce job

154
dissatisfaction, such improvement will not necessarily
produce job satisfaction as job satisfaction seems to
235
rest in the nature of the job.
After examining dual-career couples, Bryson,
Bryson and Johnson note differences between husbands and
wives in terms of job satisfaction.

Wives expressed

less satisfaction with the amount of time available for
professional activities.

In addition to indicating

greater problems caused by differential achievement,
wives were also more dissatisfied with their rate of
advancement, opportunity to interact with colleagues,
and freedom to pursue long-range occupational goals.
They were also dissatisfied with their scholarly output.
The wives had published fewer articles and presented
fewer papers at conventions.

236

Personality Characteristics
of Women Faculty
In their attempt to discern significant under­
lying reasons for differential treatment of faculty
women, investigators have not only identified overt
discrimination as a probable cause, but also many have

235Ibid.
236

Rebecca Bryson, Jeff B. Bryson, and Marilyn
F. Johnson, "Family Size Satisfaction, and Productivity
in Dual-Career Couples," Psychology of Women Quarterly
3 (Fall 1978):67-77.

155
pointed to other possibilities believed to be respon­
sible for the formation of sex specific personality
characteristics that may or may not impede efforts of
faculty women to achieve adequate career goals.

Petit

maintains that, according to her sample, administrators
and faculty women believed that women are not as
competitive in seeking advancement as faculty men and,
by accepting subordination too readily, faculty women
have hampered their professional career chances.

Petit

suggests that faculty women should broaden their career
interests because women, more so than men, have to
demonstrate their competence.

237

Referring to Bernard's

study, Davis reports that of 706 college teachers in
Minnesota,

27 percent of whom were women, the women were

much more tentative, modest and more influenced by
others in their careers than were the men.

238

According to some investigators, limitations
placed on careers of women are attributed, at least in
part, to psychological-cultural factors.

Graham refers

to a report by Ellen and Kenneth Keniston which explains
the concept of internal ambivalence, experienced by

237

Rita M. Petit, "Attitudxnal Study of Faculty
Women in Higher Education in Northwest United States,"
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Montana, 1972, pp. 104105.
238
Ann Davis, "Women as a Minority Group in
Higher Academics," American Sociologist (May 1969):97.

156
numerous women planning to combine marriage and careers
as a conflict of basic interests.

Such conflicts are

especially acute in the years between 18 and 25,
critical periods for both sexes.

For men, this is a

time generally devoted to intensive preparation for a
career.

For women, this is a time to experience a

variety of doubts as women seek affirmation of their
femininity.

Women are sometimes uncertain about whether

they should have a career.

This uncertainty makes it

difficult for them to aspire to high levels of achievement in the academic world.

239

Rose Coser and Gerald

Rokoff note that while society values equality, and
even as equal opportunity avails itself to women,
professional women could be victims of a basic conflict.
The authors explain:
The conflict stems not simply from
participation in two different activity
systems whose claims on time allocations are
incompatible, but it also stems from the
fact that the value underlying these demands
is contradictory: Professional women are
expected to be committed to their work "just
like men" at the same time as they are
normatively required to give priority to
their family.240
For women, this conflict between loss of
femininity and being self-assertive, thinking
239
240

Graham, op. cit., p. 1285.

Rose L. Coser and Gerald Rokoff, "Women in
the Occupational World: Social Disruptions and Con­
flict," Social Problems 18 (Spring 1971):535-554.

157
aggressively, having independent strivings.

Initiating,

exploring and attaining intellectual achievement is
examined by Matina Horner who presents evidence that
not only are women conditioned not to compete, but
also not to succeed.

Women are socialized to believe

that success leads to social ostracism and loss of
femininity; therefore, the more she desires success, the
higher the penalties may be exacted by society.

241

Another reason often cited for the differential
treatment of women is their drive and motivation.
Hornig remarks that serving as another self-fulfilling
prophecy is the charge against women that they may have
routine academic ability, but lack the drive and motiva­
tion required to attain top academic positions.

Hornig

points out that, "If discriminatory practices block her
route to advancement, no amount of drive will get her
there," and she concludes, "women quite obviously need
more drive and motivation than men to persist at all in
academic pursuits."

242

Among those writers who see conflict in women's
competitiveness, or lack of it, is Hochschild, who
maintains that women are discouraged by competition as

241

Matina Horner, "Toward an Understanding of
Achievement Related Conflicts in Women," Journal of
Social Issues 28, no. 2 (1972).
242

Hornig, op. cit., p. 13.

158
such situations tend to lower ambition in women.

Even

with supportive mentors, many women experience some­
thing tangibly frightening about an environment that is
highly competitive— competitive argumentative writing;
243
competitive seminar talk.
Margaret Hennig and Anne
Jardin postulate that girls are trained in activities
that are non-competitive, while boys are trained in
competitive sports, which can be used later to signif244
icant advantage in the world of work.
This, of
course, is part of the socialization process.
A number of writers argue that the socialization
process operates to prevent many women from acquiring
attitudes and skills needed later in life to undertake
the demanding, time consuming preparation and continued
efforts necessary for successful careers.

Davis refers

to Bernard's study which mentions that the academic
quest is highly competitive, and "women are not generally
socialized into such a role and do not compete in the
same manner."

245

Tibbits explains the situation by

stating that historically women have been conditioned to
be inferior.

They have been reinforced by the sociali­

zation process to be nurturant, docile, submissive and
243

Hochschild, op. cit., p. 55.

244

Margaret Hennig and Anne Jardin, The
Managerial Woman (New York:
Pocket Books, 1978).
245

Davis, op. cit., p. 97.

159
conservative.

Instead of being concerned about their

own development, women have been taught that men's
development is more important.

246

Schlossberg mentions

that women have been deluded into thinking that men and
women have been deluded into thinking that men and
women have innately different functions.

Through the

socialization process, women have been taught to believe
that men are breadwinners and women are primarily home­
makers; women assist, while men assert; women emotion­
alize, while men analyze.

The writer concludes by

stating that, "There is a sinister force in education
trying to inhibit the progress of women."

247

Summing up

the situation Suelzle states that:
At the present time there is an elaborate
educational system designed to teach women to
underestimate themselves . . . .
A recent
study of five social studies textbooks written
for grades one to three revealed that men were
shown or described in over 100 different jobs
and women in less than 30 . . . . Women are
shown as having so few jobs of interest avail­
able to them that they might as well stay home
and have children.248

246

Sylvia-Lee Tibbits, "Sex Role Stereotyping?
Why Women Discriminate Against Themselves," Journal of
NAWDAC, Summer 1975, pp. 180-181.
247

Schlossberg, op. cit., p. 257.

248
Marijean Suelzle, "Women in Labor," in James
Henslin and Larry T. Reynolds, eds., Social Problems in
America (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1979), p~. 167.

160
A final statement about the socialization process
is provided by Schlossberg who maintains that early
socialization "anticipates the division of labor that
later determines which spouse makes the sacrifice to
24 9
keep the home intact."
According to the writer,
women's occupational aspiration is also determined by
early socialization.

Schlossberg refers to Jean

Lipman-Blunner's description of the phenomenon labelled
the vicarious achievement ethic:
To experience achievement satisfaction
through the accomplishment of another indi­
vidual is the essence of the vicarious
achievement ethic.
This ethic directs women
into traditionally feminine roles by indi­
cating the appropriateness of indirect
achievement through helping, supporting,
nurturing.
This is reflected in the
occupational distribution of women in the
labor f o r c e . 2 5 0
These reports point to the fact that personality
characteristics could impede or facilitate efforts of
faculty women to achieve a successful career.

Recent

reports indicate that changes may be in the process of
being realized.

Astin and Hirsch remind us that, based

on recent surveys of entering classes, many differences
between the sexes are narrowing.

Women's career plans

and educational aspirations represent perhaps the most
dramatic change.
249

As was mentioned in another section,

Schlossberg, op. cit., p. 260.

161
more and more women are opting out of traditionally
feminine fields and choosing traditionally masculine
careers such as engineering, medicine, law, and busi251
ness.
Schlossberg notes that the degree aspiration
of women has risen at a much sharper rate than for men.
She explains that the proportion of women who as fresh­
men indicated that they planned to enter law or medicine
quadrupled between 1967 and 1973 from 2 percent to 8
percent, compared to the proportion of men with such
plans which only doubled from 9 percent to 18 percent.
In addition, the proportion of male freshmen who said
they wanted a Ph.D. dropped slightly from 14 percent in
1967 to 12 percent in 1973, as the proportion of women
planning to obtain the Ph.D. rose from 5.7 percent to
252
9.6 percent.
Research Related to the Study
A number of studies stand out more than others
as having some influence upon the present study.

In

their study based on almost two hundred women faculty
members in Minnesota's thirty-two public and private
colleges, Eckert and Stecklin focused on those factors
influencing the choice of college teaching as a career
for women.
251
252

The researchers state in their findings
Astin and Hirsch, op. cit., p. 110.
Schlossberg, op. cit., p. 259.

162
that, despite the fact that they were typically six
years older, women faculty members in Minnesota's
institutions of higher learning, more so than their male
counterparts, arrived at their present positions more by
accident than by design.
to a number of factors.

This condition can be traced
In securing advanced training,

the women were financially handicapped.

As a result,

many of them spent long periods teaching on the staff of
elementary and secondary schools; only a few had earned
a doctor's degree or had been promoted beyond an
assistant professor's level.

The issue of job satis­

faction was also explored and the researchers found that
women faculty members appeared to be equally as satis­
fied with their career choice as their male colleagues;
however, the pattern of their reported satisfaction was
somewhat different.

While men emphasized material

rewards, opportunities to be creative and the freedom
and independence provided by faculty service, women
emphasized good human relations as their major source of
satisfaction.

Several recommendations were suggested

by the findings.

First, an increase in efforts to

acquaint undergraduate women with teaching opportunities
and satisfactory careers must be made good; secondly,
adequate financial support for graduate studies must be
made more widely available to students who qualify for
such support; and, finally, more in-service education

163
must be provided to encourage women teachers to complete
doctoral requirements.

253

Concerned about the shortage of faculty women in
institutions of higher educationf Berwald proposed that
such shortages could be alleviated through increased
employment of women faculty members provided that
college officials were willing to hire women, and women
were interested in teaching in colleges and universities.
Berwald sent questionnaires to three groups:

first, the

deans of all four-year, coeducational, non-technical
institutions accredited by the North Central Association,
and five departmental or divisional chairpersons
randomly selected from each of the institutions;
secondly, questionnaires were sent to a random sample of
ten female and male faculty members in each of the
thirty schools; and, finally, questionnaire were sent to
ten female and ten male seniors in each of the thirty
institutions.

Major findings and conclusions of atti­

tudes toward women college teachers were that deans,
departmental chairpersons, and faculty do not feel that
employment opportunities are equal for women and men,
253

"A Study of Job Motivations, Activities, and
Satisfactions of Present and Prospective Women Faculty
Members," partial report submitted to the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, May 31, 1960; and R. E.
Eckert, J. E. Stecklein, and H. B. Sagen, "College
Faculty Members View Their Jobs," AAUP Bulletin 45
(1959):513-528.

164
and that there were differences of opinion with regard
to the six dimensions examined, namely, personality
characteristics,

job mobility, teaching effectiveness,

the production of research and other scholarly writing,
the importance of contributions to the profession and
community, and the degree of acceptance accorded women
by their associates.

According to the study, attitudes

and practices of hiring officials strongly favor the
selection of males over females.

Based on the findings,

Berwald suggested that more training for women is needed
if they are to be accepted as college and university
teachers, and more encouragement by high school and
254
college faculty and administrators is also needed.
Simpson sampled employing agents and found that
they did exhibit discriminatory attitudes toward academic
women in their employment choices of equally qualified
female and male candidates.

The researcher found no

significant differences between male administrators and
male faculty toward female and male candidates who were
equally qualified.

All groups sampled consistently

selected the superior female candidate, however.

While

degrees and rank had little influence on the employment

254

Helen D. Berwald, "Attitudes Toward Women
College Teachers in Institutions of Higher Education
Accredited by the North Central Association," Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1962.

165
selection of female candidates, age, sex and experience
had a significant influence.

255

Following along a similar design, Petit wished
to elicit opinions and attitudes concerning faculty
women in higher education.

Her subjects included deans,

vice presidents, and selected faculty women from fiftythree institutions in the states of Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington.

In addition, Petit

interviewed a selected group of faculty women from nine
institutions located in Montana.

The groups were ques­

tioned concerning equal opportunities for employment and
advancement of faculty women and differences between
women and men as faculty members in higher education
along the dimensions of personality characteristics, job
mobility, teaching effectiveness, contributions to the
profession, and acceptance by associates.

According to

the author, major findings revealed a sharp contrast
between the administrators, that is, deans and vice
presidents and faculty women as to equal opportunities
for women and men in the institutions, particularly
around the area of academic rewards, as faculty women
indicated they were often bypassed for promotion.
author states:

2®5Simpson, loc. cit.

The

166
It would appear that, in theory, deans and
vice presidents agreed to the extension of
equal opportunities of employment and advance­
ment to men and women in higher education,
but, in practice, such equal opportunities
were not always extended to faculty women.
This could be detected by salary and rank
differentials reported by deans . . . and by
opinions expressed by faculty w o m e n . 256
Other notable findings included the fact that
job mobility, personality characteristics, and produc­
tion of research and other scholarly writing were major
points of disagreement between the two groups.

Con­

trary to most faculty members the administrators, for
example, believed that women were not as competitive in
seeking advancement as faculty men, that few faculty
were motivated enough to employ the needed effort to
earn advancement to higher ranks, that few faculty women
stayed in their positions long enough to earn promo­
tions, and that faculty women were often bypassed for
promotion.

Petit concludes her findings with the

information that both groups agreed to two other signif­
icant points? namely, that faculty women should learn to
broaden their career interests and that women's poten­
tial in higher education has been neglected.

She

recommends that institutions should take active measures
to insure implementation of an effective equal oppor­
tunity policy, that an affirmative action compliance

2C£

Petit, op. cit., p. 100.

167
should be clearly defined, that there should be institu­
tional recruitment for the appointment of new staff,
with no final appointment made until women candidates
had been sought and encouraged to apply, that the insti­
tution's policy toward equal opportunity and affirmative
action compliance programs should be made aware to all
members of the institution, and that a board should be
established to re-educate men regarding the roles of
both sexes.

257

In a recent investigation, Crim studied current
attitudes and opinions of faculty women and men toward
faculty members in institutions of higher education for
the purpose of identifying factors which might influence
the general attitudes of faculty toward faculty women.
His subjects included a full-time faculty of the
institutions of higher education associated with the New
Hampshire College and University Council.

The purpose

of the study was to determine if men and women had
similar attitudes and opinions regarding employment and
advancement opportunities,

job mobility, personality

characteristics, teaching effectiveness, production of
research and other scholarly writing, contributions to
the profession, acceptance by associates, and use of
full potential of women faculty members.

257

Petit, op. cit., pp. 98-113.

Crim maintains

168
that, "Discriminatory attitudes held by both men and
women may still persist, but the findings of this study
indicate that they are fewer in number and have lost
some of their intensity."

258

When asked about employment and advancement
opportunities for women, both women and men respondents
agreed that women are both qualified and competitive in
seeking employment and advancement in higher education,
and that the turnover rate of faculty women is not
higher to that of faculty men.

Moreover, both groups

agreed that faculty women are just as geographically
mobile as their male colleagues, and they do stay in
positions long enough to earn promotions to upper ranks.
Also, the group agreed that equal pay for equal work
for both sexes is desirable.

On the other hand, a

significantly larger percentage of females reported that
employment opportunities at their institutions are not
equal, and women and not men indicate that discrimina­
tion takes place in the promotion process.

A majority

of the women indicated that faculty women are often
bypassed for promotion.

A majority of both groups

indicated advancement of women is a slow process, but a
significantly larger percentage of women indicated
advancement was slower for faculty women, while a

258

Crim, op. cit., p. 83.

169
significantly larger percentage of men took the opposite
view.
Differences of opinions concerning the utiliza­
tion of the full potential of faculty women were indi­
cated.

Men felt more strongly than women that the

opportunities for faculty women to develop to full
potential presently exists; however, women indicated
that the exploration of the potential of women in higher
education has been neglected.
Exploration of other aspects of the job, includ­
ing teaching effectiveness, and research and other
scholarly writing revealed that a significantly larger
percentage of women than men expressed the opinion that
faculty women are more dedicated and responsible, but
are prevented from being effective teachers because of
cultural attitudes.

Although both groups agreed that

faculty women produce the required research, a signif­
icantly larger percentage of women than men indicated
that faculty women publish less.
In terms of personality characteristics, the
findings indicate that, although a small majority of
the women disagreed, a large majority of men expressed
the opinion that faculty women accept subordination more
readily than men.

A large majority of women indicated

faculty women should learn to broaden career interests,
while a small majority of men disagreed.

According to

170
both groups, faculty women do want equality and
decision-making responsibilities, and they do have
commitment and competitive spirits.
Crim recommends the necessity of re-educating
women and men, with respect to their roles and the means
of performing them, and he advocates that institutions
must take active measures to insure effective implemen­
tation of equal employment and promotion policies, and
the establishment of non-discrimination policies
259
throughout the institutions of higher learning.

259
*33Ibid., pp. 71-85.

CHAPTER 3
METHODS OF THE STUDY

In this chapter, the writer will describe the
procedures and activities carried out in planning and
conducting this study.
Population of the Study
The total population of this study consisted of
faculty women and men employed at Michigan State Univer­
sity during the academic year 1978-79 in the Department
of American Thought and Language of University College,
now part of the College of Arts and Letters, and five
departments in the College of Business:

Business Law

and Office Education, Management, Hotel and Restaurant
Management, Marketing and Transportation, and Economics.
Procedure of the Study
The Preliminary Interview
At the beginning of the summer quarter 1979, the
author of this research began the questionnaire which
would be sent to a selected group of faculty women and
men in two separate colleges at Michigan State Univer­
sity.

The Department of American Thought and Language
171

172
of University College was selected because, out of a
total of 102 faculty members, 48 or 49 percent are women
faculty members.

Pour of the five departments in the

College of Business were selected because, out of 122
total faculty members, eleven or 11 percent are women.
The questionnaire was designed to explore the
nature of faculty women’s positions, the relevant condi­
tions of employment, and a comparison of their status
and attitudes with those of their male colleagues as
perceived by both women and men faculty members.

Early

in the planning process, it became apparent that
considerable help might be obtained from a group of
women and men faculty members.

The answers they might

give to a series of open-ended questions would be useful
in yielding suggestions of areas needing study, or
hypotheses to be tested in the investigation to follow.
This help was obtained through a series of
interviews.

The group of faculty members asked to

cooperate in this preliminary interview can best be
described as follows:

Their genuine interest in this

type of research could be presupposed because of their
involvement in activities or procedures related to the
improvement of opportunities for women at institutions
of higher learning, such as affirmative action pro­
cedures, publications and research, courses offered or
seminars conducted, or membership in women's

173
organizations on campus.

The tabulation in Table 2 shows

the distribution by field, academic rank, and sex of
faculty members interviewed.

TABLE 2.— Distribution of Faculty Members Interviewed.
Number
Area

Rank
Women

2

Professor
1
1
Associate
Professor

Men

1

2
1
1
1

Assistant
Professor

1
1
1

1
1

TOTALS

9

Administration
Counseling Education
Psychology
American Thought and Language
Education
Humanities
Psychology
Administration
American Thought and Language
Humanities
Psychology

6

The interviewer called each faculty member and
arranged an appointment.

Interviews averaged about an

hour in length and were valuable to the later develop­
ment of the study.

Questions asked included the

following:
1.

What should be studied in relation to
improving the status of women faculty
members?

174
2.

Are there equal opportunities for employ­
ment and advancement of women faculty in
your department?

3.

On what basis are faculty members in your
department rewarded and advanced? Is it the
same or different in other departments of
your college? Are there any sex differences
in promotional policies?

4.

Are potential abilities of faculty women
fully utilized in your department?

Data Gathering Procedures
As the study was concerned with attitudes toward
faculty women in higher education, it was considered
desirable to compare the attitudes of faculty women and
faculty men toward women in academe.

On October 25,

1979, the investigator mailed to each faculty member
selected a packet containing a cover letter, a question­
naire, and a returned, self-addressed envelope.

The

cover letter (see Appendix A) explained the purpose and
nature of the study, and gave instructions for the
completion and return of the questionnaires.

Numerical

coding of each survey questionnaire mailed to the study
population permitted identification for follow-up
requests.

On January 7, 1980, a follow-up packet was

mailed to those faculty members who had not responded to
the original request.

In the last week of February,

telephone calls were made as a final measure to those
recipients of the survey questionnaire who had not

175
responded to the original request or the follow-up
request to ask personally for their assistance.
The Instrument of the Study
The instrument used for the present study con­
sisted of a list of items formulated by this investiga­
tor to be used to obtain information on opinions and
attitudes toward faculty women in academe by comparing
the attitudes of selected women and men faculty members,
and by comparing the status and opportunities of faculty
women to that of faculty men.

The survey questionnaire

was composed of two parts.
Part I consisted of questions in five areas of
interest to be used in reporting the profile of the
respondents:

vocational experience, career patterns,

biographical background, family background, and educa­
tional background.

The questions were selected for

usability from A Catalog of Life History Items.^

The

questions also followed the criteria developed by
William A. Owens et al., which stated that questions
should be brief, numbers should be used whenever possible
to graduate or define options or alternatives, and items

J. R. Glennon, L. E. Albright, and W. A. Owens,
A Catalog of Life History Items, Scientific Affairs
Committee, American Psychological Association, Division
44, 1966.

176
should carry a neutral or pleasant connotation for the
2
respondent.
Part II comprised ninety-one items, highlighting
issues of the questions under study concerned with the
status of academic women along the dimensions of the
following:

employment and advancement, personality

characteristics,

job mobility, research and other

scholarly writing,

acceptance by associates, utilization

of the full potential of faculty women,
and alternative work patterns.

job satisfaction,

Although the question­

naire items included routine questions designed to
obtain pertinent information, and many of the questions
were based on untested opinions and assumptions found
in the literature related to the thesis topic, certain
procedures were adopted to insure adequate validation.
The content and criterion validity were accounted for by
reviewing the related literature, using try-out forms,
and making a post-hoc criterion check.
Literature Related to the
Formulation of the
Questionnaire
In preparing the questionnaire, the related
literature concerned with the career development of

2
William A. Owens, J. R. Glennon, and Louis E.
Albright, "Retest Consistency and the Writing of Life
History Items," Journal of Applied Psychology XLVI
(1962):37 5-384.

177
faculty women was reviewed.

It was found that several

investigators developed a questionnaire for gathering
information on the subject under present investigation.
For example, Berwald constructed and employed three
questionnaires— an administrative questionnaire for
deans, or comparable officials, and departmental or
divisional chairpersons; a faculty questionnaire; and a
student questionnaire.

Designed with the intent of

comparing (wherever possible) opportunities in college
teaching for women with those afforded men, and since no
absolute scale existed on which to measure only the
status of women, all the questionnaires repeated three
items to facilitate a comparison of attitudes of administrators, faculty and students.

3

Petit prepared her

questionnaire by reviewing the related literature
concerned with the employment and advancement of faculty
women in higher education, the differences between women
and men faculty members, and the utilization of the full
potential of women faculty.

The author formulated a

list of items to be used to obtain information on
opinions and attitudes toward faculty women.

Although

many items were based on untested opinions, all items
were considered by Petit to be of timely significance to
women faculty.

The opinionnaire was prepared for three

3
Berwald, op. ext.

178
reference groups:
women.

deans, vice presidents, and faculty

The instrument was composed of two parts.

Part

I was different for each group, whereas Part II was the
same for the three groups.

Biographical data to be used

in reporting the profile of the respondents composed
Part I.

Also, for the deans. Part I included brief

information on the faculty and students, which provided
some knowledge on a general profile of the institutions
in the sample.

Part II had a total of thirty-two items

highlighting issues of the questions under study.

The

researcher conducted semi-structured personal interviews
with faculty, which acted as a check on the reliability
of the data obtained.

4

In his study, Crim was concerned

with attitudes toward faculty women in higher education
and found it useful to employ the survey instrument
developed by Petit in order to gather his data.

The

content and criterion validity of the instrument was
insured by the item development process, the pilot
studies, and a post-hoc criterion check.

5

Try-Out Forms
Try-out forms of the questionnaire were sent to
two male faculty members in the Department of Accounting,
College of Business; three male and one female faculty

4

Petit, op. cit.

5

Crim, op. cit.

179
members in the Department of Social Science; and two
male and two female faculty members in the Department of
Humanities/ University College— all at Michigan State
University.

Individuals participating in the try-out

phase of the study gave helpful suggestions.

Some

devoted considerable time providing useful feedback and
reaction to various items, offering personal experiences
appropriate to the subject investigated.

Those sugges­

tions which seemed relevant were incorporated in the
final form of the questionnaire.

Another important

valuable source of information provided by the try-out
form was the information it provided as to length of
time required to complete the form.
Acquisition of the Data
The document which showed the number and percen­
tages of faculty by academic unit, entitled Affirmative
g

Action at Michigan State University,

indicated that the

Department of American Thought and Language, University
College, had a total of 102 faculty members who were
male, and 48 faculty members who were female, whereas
the College of Business had a total of 112 male and five
female faculty members.

This sharp contrast played an

important role in the decision to study this population.
6Affirmative Action at Michigan State University
1977-78, Annual Report to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, p. 50.

180
Directories for the academic yar 1978-79 were obtained
from each department of the two colleges in order to
obtain the names of the faculty members.
To determine an acceptable response rate for the
survey instrument, the study adopted the response rate
recommended for survey research as identified in a
review of survey literature.

7

Babbie and other

authorities in the field of survey research conclude
that the body of inferential statistics used in connec­
tion with survey analysis assumes that all members of
the initial sample complete and return their questionO

naires.

However, since 100 percent response rate is

rarely achieved, Babbie suggests the following response
rates, which were used as guidelines for data collection
and analysis in this study:

50 percent adequate for

analysis and reporting; a response rate of at least 60
percent is good; and a response rate of 70 percent or
more is very good.

Although the return rate of this

survey was 60 percent (see Table 3), it is still con­
sidered by this researcher to be inadequate, especially
7
Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods
(California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973),
pp. 165-169; Gene F. Summers, ed., Attitude Measurement
(Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1971); Marjorie N.
Donald, "Implications of Non-Response for the Inter­
pretation of Mail Questionnaire Data,” Public Opinion
Quarterly 24, no. 1 (I960):99-114.
8Ibid.

TABLE 3.— Mailed and Returned Questionnaires.
Mailed
Questionnaires
To

Department

Questionnaires
Returned
By

Women

Men

Total

Women

Men

48

54

102

36

40

Business Law and Office Management

4

11

15

2

Hotel and Restaurant Management

1

11

12

Management

1

25

Marketing and Transportation

2

Economics

1

ercen age
Responding

Total

Women

Men

Total

76

75

74

76

9

11

50

82

73

1

3

4

100

27

33

26

1

11

12

100

44

46

17

19

2

4

6

100

24

32

46

47

1

19

20

100

41

43

University college
American Thought and Language

College of Business

Total questionnaires mailed:

225

Total questionnaires returned:
Total percentage responding:

136
60

182
for a local population.

Every reasonable attempt was

made to increase the response rate, but failed.

It is

recognized that perhaps the inclusion of the missing 40
percent might have generated quite different results.
Anaylsis of the Data
The data from the questionnaire were recorded on
punched cards to facilitate analysis.

Responses to each

item on the attitude survey were assigned a value 1
(strongly agree),

2 (agree), 3 (disagree), and 4

(strongly disagree).

Each item in the survey was

grouped under one of fifteen broad categories repre­
senting a summary of variables under investigation.
This was considered necessary for ease of computation
and reporting, and for insuring sophisticated analysis.
The following is a list of the fifteen categories and
items appropriate to each category:
Category 1 .
faculty women.

Data related to the employment of

Items numbered 17, 21, 23, 31, and 104

related to the employment of faculty women in higher
education.
17.

Employment opportunities are equal for men
and women.

21.

Employing agents favor employing women
better qualified than men, as members of
the faculty.

23.

Employing agents tend to think automati­
cally in terms of men when filling a new
position on the faculty.

183
104.

When I was looking for my first job, a
faculty member sponsored me and served as
my mentor.

Category 2 .
faculty women.

Data related to the advancement of

Items numbered 18, 22, 27, 37, and 71

related to the advancement of faculty women in terms of
promotion.
18.

Few faculty women meet the preparation
requirements for promotion to upper ranks.

22.

Few faculty women stay in their positions
long enough to earn promotions to upper
ranks.

27.

There should be a merit system of appoint­
ment and promotion in higher education
regardless of sex.

37.

Faculty women are often bypassed for
promotion.

71.

Faculty women have equal opportunity for
promotions.

Category 3 .
faculty women.

Data related to the advancement of

Items numbered 19, 74, and 106 related

to advancement of faculty women with regard to pay.
19.

Women and men deserve equal pay for equal
work in higher education.

74.

Salaries are the same for faculty women
and men with rank.

106.

In my department, it is very difficult for
a person to receive significant salary if
he or she does not publish.

Category 4 .
faculty women.

Data related to the advancement of

Items numbered 72, 73, and 105 related

to advancement of faculty women with regard to tenure.

184
72.

Faculty women have equal likelihood of
tenure attainment.

73.

Tenure evaluation criteria are the same
for faculty women and men in my
department.

105.

It is very difficult for a person to
achieve tenure if he or she does not
publish.

Category 5.
faculty women

Data related to advancement of

Items numbered 28, 40, 58, and 76

related to advancement of faculty women with regard to
career development.
28.

In general, advancement for women in higher
education is a slow process.

40.

Few faculty women are sufficiently
interested to put forth the effort to earn
advancement to upper ranks.

58.

It is appropriate for a faculty woman to
head my department.

76.

Faculty women have equal opportunity for
additional assignments.

Category 6.
faculty women

Data related to the advancement of

(summary).

Category 7.

Data related to personality

characteristics of faculty women.

Items numbered 24,

25, 23, 33, 38, 43, 44, 60, 61, 81, and 84 related to
personality characteristics of faculty women.
24.

Faculty women are not as competitive in
seeking advancement as faculty men.

25.

Faculty women have less of a professional
commitment than do faculty men.

185
29.

Faculty women do not assume responsibility
in decision-making as rapidly as faculty
men.

33.

Faculty women accept subordination more
readily than do faculty men.

38.

Faculty women do want full equality, even
if it does mean equal responsibility.

43.

Faculty women should learn to broaden their
career interests more persistently than
they have to date.

44.

Faculty women are more fearful than faculty
men of conflicts that might endanger their
professional status.

60.

Decision-making is an important part of the
work of faculty women.

61.

It is important to faculty women to be able
to make decisions about their work.

81.

Faculty women have equal input into
decision-making.

84.

Faculty women participate in informal
decisions.

Category 8 .
faculty women.

Data related to job mobility of

Items numbered 22, 32, and 35 related to

job mobility of faculty women.
22.

Few faculty women stay in their positions
long enough to earn promotions to upper
ranks.

32.

The turnover rate of faculty women is
higher than that of faculty men.

35.

Faculty women are less mobile geographically
than faculty men.

186
Category 9 .

Data related to teaching effective­

ness of faculty women.

Items numbered 20, 41, 48, and

79 related to teaching effectiveness of faculty women.
20.

Faculty women are more dedicated to
teaching than faculty men.

41.

Faculty women are more responsive to
students than faculty men.

48.

Cultural attitudes of men colleagues and of
students prevent a woman in higher educa­
tion from being an effective teacher.

79.

Faculty women have opportunities for
student supervision.

Category 10.
scholarly writing.

Data related to research and other

Items numbered 42, 77, 80, 102, and

103 related to research and other scholarly writing of
faculty women.
42.

Faculty women publish less than faculty
men.

77.

Faculty women have equal opportunity for
placement of journal articles.

80.

Faculty women have equal research
possibilities.

Category 11.
the profession.

Data related to contribution to

Items numbered 66, 67, 68, 69, 7 0, and

82 related to contribution to the profession of faculty
women.
66.

Faculty women often work more than the
normal scheduled hours.

67.

Faculty women have equal participation in
departmental and professional activities in
my department.

187
68.

Faculty women serve equally on important
committees in my department.

69.

Faculty women serve on more prestigious com­
mittees than faculty men in my department.

70.

Faculty women are encouraged to seek
offices in professional organizations.

82.

Faculty women have equal opportunity for
attaining funding for conferences.

Category 12.

Data related to acceptance by

associates of faculty women.

Items numbered 30, 39, 47,

59, 83, 85, 86, and 87 related to acceptance by asso­
ciates of faculty women.
30.

Faculty women are taken less seriously than
faculty men when sent out to represent the
university.

39.

Faculty women are regarded favorably by
their colleagues.

47.

Faculty women are less responsive to their
colleagues than faculty men.

59.

Faculty women feel that co-workers make
them feel an important part of the
department.

83.

Faculty women have equal opportunity to
interact with colleagues.

85.

Faculty women, more often than men, are
asked patronizing questions or comments.

86.

Faculty women, more often than men, often
hear hostile questions or comments.

Category 13.

Data related to the use of full

potential of faculty women.

Items numbered 26, 36, 56,

64, and 65 related to use of full potential of faculty
women.

188
26.

Faculty women who wish to develop their
potential have adequate opportunity to do
so.

36.

The exploration of the potential of women
in higher education has been neglected.

56.

Faculty women are discriminated against
because of their political views about the
women's movement.

57.

Faculty women feel that it is not important
to express their views about the women's
movement.

64.

Faculty women do not feel discriminated
against in their job because of sex.

65.

Sex discrimination in employment practices
is an important issue for faculty women.

Category 1 4 .
of faculty
related

women.

Data related to job satisfaction

Items numbered 62, 63, 88, and 89

tojob satisfaction of faculty women.
62.

Taking everything into account, faculty
women are satisfied with their jobs.

63. It is
important for faculty women to be
satisfied with their jobs.
88.

Support from my department chairperson has
fostered my job satisfaction in my
department.

89.

I attribute my job satisfaction, in part,
to the fact that I have achieved my present
rank in my department within a reasonable
time period.

Category 1 5 .

Data related to alternative work

patterns of faculty women.

Items numbered 49, 50, 52,

53, 54, and 55 related to alternative work patterns of
faculty women.

189
49.

Alternative work patterns, such as job
sharing, flex-time and part-time should be
established at this institution.

50.

For a limited period, professional persons
who have heavy family responsibilities
should have the opportunity to assume a
reduced load temporarily, and to return to
full-time status when their schedules
permit.

51.

Provision should be made, on a limited
basis, for those who wish to teach regu­
larly on a part-time basis to enjoy many of
the rewards and benefits which accrue to
regular faculty status.

52.

Regular part-time faculty should be willing
to undergo the same critical professional
evaluation accorded their full-time
colleagues, and should be prepared to
contribute time and energy in such areas as
counseling, working on faculty committees,
and maintaining of office hours.

53.

A special, but limited category of parttime faculty should be created, who after
the expiration of a stipulated probationary
period, should be eligible for the full
range of faculty benefits, such as: leave,
promotion, support for scholarships,
tenure, opportunity to participate in
decision-making, voting privileges at
faculty meetings, retirement and other
fringe benefits.

54.

Regular faculty members should be eligible
to assume a reduced teaching load for a
specified period in order to accommodate
family responsibilities and to have the
probationary period extended accordingly.

55.

In some instances, regular, but less than
full-time faculty members should be
eligible to enjoy professional titles in
accordance with their abilities as teachers
and scholars and should have the benefit of
equitable standards for notification, pay
scales, fringe benefits, and opportunities
for community service.

190
Comparisons of the two groups' responses (women
and men faculty) and college responses (University
College and the College of Business) to each category of
items on the attitude survey were then conducted.
Double-classification analysis of variance was the
statistical procedure used, because it allowed this
researcher to classify the data according to women and
men faculty, and University College and the College of
Business.

It also enabled this researcher to determine

differences due to the combination of these two clas­
sifications, which did not appear when either sex or
college were considered separately.

9

This statistical

procedure was used to test the null hypotheses for the
questions:
1.

No significant differences exist between the

expressed attitudes and opinions of women and men
faculty members with regard to Categories 1 through 15
on the attitude survey.
2.

No significant differences exist between the

expressed attitudes and opinions of respondents in
University College and the College of Business with
regard to Categories 1 through 15 on the attitude
survey.

9

Robert K. Young and Donald J. Veldman, Intro­
ductory Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), p. 299.

191
3.

No significant differences exist due to the

combination of the expressed attitudes and opinions of
women and men faculty members and the expressed attitudes
and opinions of respondents of University College and
respondents of the College of Business t which do not
appear when either is considered separately.
The data are presented in both written and chart
form in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The purpose of this study was to investigate
current attitudes toward faculty women in higher educa­
tion.

To obtain data, a survey of opinions and attitudes

of selected faculty women and faculty men was carried out
during the fall of 1978.

Results of the survey have

provided some answers to questions posed earlier in the
study, which were formulated to facilitate identification
of certain significant factors which might influence the
general attitude of other faculty members toward faculty
women in academe.
Chapter 2 was a review of selected related
literature.

This review of literature was divided into

three broad categories:

(1) research on the history of

women faculty in higher education,

(2) research on pre­

sent trends and opportunities for faculty women in higher
education, and (3) other research concerned with employ­
ment and advancement of faculty women in higher education
that had some influence on the design of the present
study.

192

193
In the third chapter, the methods of the study
were described.

Included in this chapter were the

definition of the procedures for obtaining the data and
the analysis.
Major Hypotheses
The attitudes and opinions of female and male
faculty members toward female faculty members in
selected departments of two colleges at Michigan State
University were determined by testing the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis I
There is no difference between the Department
of American Thought and Language of University
College and five departments in the College of Busi­
ness, including Business Law and Office Education,
Hotel and Restaurant Management, Management, Market­
ing and Transportation, and Economics for the depen­
dent variables:
Hqs

a) Category 1. Employment opportunities for faculty
women in higher education.
b) Category 2. Advancement opportunities for faculty
women in higher education— promotion.
c) Category 3. Advancement opportunities for faculty
women in higher education— pay.
d) Category 4. Advancement opportunities for faculty
women in higher education— tenure.
e) Category 5. Advancement opportunities for faculty
women in higher education— career development.
f) Category 6. Advancement opportunities for faculty
women in higher education— summary.

194
g) Category 7. Personality characteristics of
faculty women in higher education.
h) Category 8. Job mobility of faculty women in
higher education.
i) Category 9. Teaching effectiveness of faculty
women in higher education.
j) Category 10. Research and other scholarly writ­
ing of faculty women in higher education.
k) Category 11. Contributions to profession of
faculty women in higher education.
1) Category 12. Acceptance by associates of faculty
women in higher education.
m) Category 13.
Use of full potential of faculty
women in higher education.
n) Category 14. Job satisfaction of faculty women
in higher education.
o) Category 15. Alternative work patterns of
faculty women in higher education.
H^:
There is a difference between the two colleges
for the dependent variables:
a) Category 1. Employment opportunities for
faculty women in higher education.
b) Category 2. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— promotion.
c) Category 3. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— pay.
d) Category 4. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— tenture.
e) Category 5. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— career
development.
f) Category 6. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— career
development.

195
g) Category 7. Personality characteristics of
faculty women in higher education.
h) Category 8. Job mobility of faculty women in
higher education.
i) Category 9. Teaching effectiveness of faculty
women in higher education.
j) Category 10. Research and other scholarly
writing of faculty women in higher education.
k) Category 11. Contributions to profession of
faculty women in higher education.
1) Category 12. Acceptance by associates of faculty
women in higher education.
m) Category 13. Use of full potential of faculty
women in higher education.
n) Category 14. Job satisfaction of faculty women
in higher education.
o) Category 15. Alternative work patterns of
faculty women in higher education.
Hypothesis II
Hq : There is no difference between women and men
faculty members for the dependent variables:
a) Category 1. Employment opportunities for faculty
women in higher education.
b) Category 2. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— promotion.
c) Category 3. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— pay.
d) Category 4. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— tenure.
e) Category 5. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— career
development.
f) Category 6. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— summary.

196
g) Category 7. Personality characteristics of
faculty women in higher education.
h) Category 8. Job mobility of faculty women in
higher education.
i) Category 9. Teaching effectiveness of faculty
women in higher education.
j) Category 10. Research and other scholarly writ­
ing of faculty women in higher education.
k) Category 11, Contributions to profession of
faculty women in higher education.
1) Category 12. Acceptance by associates of
faculty women in higher education.
m) Category 13. Use of full potential of faculty
women in higher education.
n) Category 14. Job satisfaction of faculty women
in higher education.
o) Category 15. Alternative work patterns of
faculty women in higher education.
H.: There is a difference between women and men
faculty members for the dependent variables:
a) Category 1. Employment opportunities for
faculty women in higher education.
b) Category 2. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— promotion.
c) Category 3. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— pay.
d) Category 4. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— tenure.
e) Category 5. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— career
education.
f) Category 6. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— summary.
g) Category 7. Personality characteristics of
faculty women in higher education.

197

h) Category 8. Job mobility of faculty women in
higher education.
i) Category 9. Teaching effectiveness of faculty
women in higher education.
j) Category 10.
Research and other scholarly writ­
ing of faculty women in higher education.
k) Category 11. Contributions to profession of
faculty women in higher education.
1) Category 12. Acceptance by associates of faculty
women in higher education.
m) Category 13.
Use of full potential of faculty
women in higher education.
n) Category 14.
Job satisfaction of faculty women
in higher education.
o) Category 15. Alternative work patterns of
faculty women in higher education.
Hypothesis III
H q : There is no difference between colleges by sex
for the dependent variables:
a) Category 1. Employment opportunities for faculty
women in higher education.
b) Category 2. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— promotion.
c) Category 3. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— pay.
d) Category 4. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— tenure.
e) Category 5. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— career
development.
f) Category 6. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— summary.
g) Category 7. Personality characteristics of
faculty women in higher education.

198
h) Category 8. Job mobility of faculty women in
higher education.
i) Category 9. Teaching effectiveness of faculty
women in higher education.
j) Category 10. Research and other scholarly writ­
ing of faculty women in higher education.
k) Category 11. Contributions to profession of
faculty women in higher education.
1) Category 12. Acceptance by associates of faculty
women in higher education.
m) Category 13. Use of full potential of faculty
women in higher education.
n) Category 14. Job satisfaction of faculty women
in higher education.
o) Category 15. Alternative work patterns of
faculty women in higher education.
H^: There is a difference between colleges by sex
for the dependent variables:
a) Category 1. Employment opportunities for faculty
women in higher education.
b) Category 2. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— promotion.
c) Category 3. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— pay.
d) Category 4. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— tenure.
e) Category 5. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— career
development.
f) Category 6. Advancement opportunities for
faculty women in higher education— summary.
g) Category 7. Personality characteristics of
faculty women in higher education.
h) Category 8. Job mobility of faculty women in
higher education.

199

i) Category 9. Teaching effectiveness of faculty
women in higher education.
j) Category 10. Research and other scholarly writ­
ing of faculty women in higher education.
k) Category 11. Contributions to profession of
faculty women in higher education.
1) Category 12. Acceptance by associates of faculty
women in higher education.
m) Category 13. Use of full potential of faculty
women in higher education.
n) Category 14. Job satisfaction of faculty women
in higher education.
o) Category 15. Alternative work patterns of
faculty women in higher education.
Analysis of the Problems of the Study
The ninety-one items of Part II of the question­
naire were divided into appropriate subgroups.

These

subgroups and their composite scores were combined into
fifteen broad categories.

The categories were analyzed

to determine divergence among the two groups in the
selected departments of the two colleges studied as to
attitudes toward faculty women in higher education.

For

all fifteen categories, two way, college by sex, fixed
effects analyses of variance were used to test hypoth­
eses I, II, and III.
Frequency counts for faculty women and men to
the following eight items of Part I of the questionnaire
were computed:

200
1 . Selected departments
2. Years on faculty
3.

Rank

4.

Marital status

5.

Number of years on the faculty

6.

Age

7.
8.

Highest degree attained
Type of appointment

Part I provided additional information on the
respondents that could be helpful in facilitating a
better understanding of attitudes toward faculty women
in higher education.
Any missing data were ignored.
Profile of Respondents
Thirty-two percent (N = 42) of the respondents
were women;

68 percent were men (N = 88).

Women made up

a larger percentage of the faculty of the Department of
American Thought and Language of University College than
of the five departments in the College of Business
(46.0 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively).
Table 4.

See

The proportions of males and females surveyed

closely matches the corresponding proportions in the
identified population.

Table 4 provides a summary of

the compositions of the faculty members of selected
departments in both colleges.

201
TABLE 4.— Actual Composition of Faculty Members of
Selected Departments in University College and
the College of Business Responding.
Female
Respondents

Selected
Departments

Number

Percent

Male
Respondents
Number

Percent

University
College
Department of
American
Thought and
Language

34

46.0

40

54.0

8

14.2

48

86.0

42

38.0

88

68.0

College of
Business
Departments
(All except
Accounting)
Total

Years on Faculty
Women have fewer years as faculty members of the
departments studied than men.

Only 9.5 percent of the

women have sixteen or more years of duty, compared to
22.7 percent for men.

However, 46.5 percent of men have

less than nine years service.

Thirty and nine tenths

percent of the women have less than three years employ­
ment in their current departments as compared with 22.7
percent of the men.

(See Table 5.)

202
TABLE 5.— Number of Years on Faculty of Respondents.
Number of
Years

Female
Respondents
Number

Male
Respondents

Percent

Number

Percent

0-3

13

30.9

20

22.7

4-8

7

16.7

13

14.8

18

42.9

30

34.1

16-20

1

2.4

5

5.7

21+

3

7.1

20

22.7

42

100.0

88

100.0

9-15

Total

Rank
Sixty-nine percent of the men hold rank of
associate or full professor, while only 28 percent of
women hold the same rank.

Twenty-eight percent of the

women hold ranks of lecturer or instructor; only 9
percent of the men hold similar ranks.

(See Table 6.)

Marital Status
Both groups have a higher percentage of married
faculty members than single faculty members

(64.3

percent for married women as compared to 23.8 percent
single women; 77.2 percent married men as compared to
20.5 percent in the single category).
percentages.

Table 7 provides

203

TABLE 6.— Rank of Respondents.

Academic
Rank

Female
Respondents
Number

Male
Respondents

Percent

Number

Percent

Professor

7

16.6

44

50.0

Associate
Professor

5

11.9

17

19.3

Assistant
Professor

18

42.9

19

21.6

Instructor

11

26.2

8

9.1

1

2.4

42

100.0

88

100.0

Lecturer
Total

204

TABLE 7.— Marital Status of Respondents.

Marital
Status

Female
Respondents
Number

Percent

Male
Respondents
Number

Percent

25

59.5

64

72.7

Married Remarried

2

4.8

4

4.5

Separated

5

11.9

2

2.3

Single Never Married

8

19.0

13

14.8

Single Divorced or
Widowed

2

4.8

5

5.7

42

100.0

88

100.0

Married Once

Total

205
Number of Years on
the Faculty
Women have fewer years as faculty members than
their male counterparts.

Twenty-seven and three tenths

percent of the men have sixteen or more years duty,
compared to only 11.9 percent for women.

Fifty-two and

four tenths percent of the women, as compared to 38.0
percent of men, have less than nine years service.
Thirty-one percent of the women have three years or less
employment as compared with 25.0 percent of the men.
(See Table 8.)

TABLE 8.— Number of Years on the Faculty in Current
Department.

Years in
Department

Number
0-3

16-20

Number

Percent

22

25.0

21.4

12

13.6

15

35.7

30

34.1

1

2.4

7

8.0

9.5

17

19.3

100.0

88

100.0

21+
Total

Percent
31.0

13

4-8
9-15

Male
Respondents

Female
Respondents

42

206

Age of Respondents
Larger percentages of women than men are under
thirty years of age (16.7 percent as compared to 6.8
percent, respectively).

Slightly more men than women

are over 49 years of age (35.2 percent for men and 31.0
percent for women

(See Table 9.)

TABLE 9. — Age of Respondents.
Female
Respondents

Age

Number

Male
Respondents

Percent

Number

Percent

20-29

7

16.7

6

6.8

30-39

14

33.3

32

36.4

40-49

5

11.9

19

21.6

50-59

8

9.5

19

21.6

60+

4

9.5

12

13.6

42

100.0

88

100.0

Total

Degree Attained of
Respondents
Seventy-nine percent of the respondents hold
doctorate degrees.

Twenty-six percent of those holding

doctorate degrees are women compared to 74 percent of

207
the men.

A larger percentage of men respondents than

women respondents hold the doctorate degree (85 percent
and 64 percent, respectively).

(See Table 10.)

TABLE 10.— Highest Degrees Attained by Respondents.
Female
Respondents

Degree
Attained

Number

Percent

Male
Respondents
Number

Percent

Doctorate

27

64.3

75

85.2

Master's/MBA

14

33.3

8

9.1

2.4

5

5.7

100.0

88

100.0

Bachelor's
Other
42

Total

Type of Appointments
of Respondents
More men faculty members (70.5 percent) hold
full-time positions with tenure than women faculty
members (45.2 percent).

A larger percentage of women

hold short-term appointments than faculty men (26.2
percent for women as compared to only 9.0 percent for
men in this category).

(See Table 11.)

208
TABLE 11.— Type of Appointments of Respondents.
Female
Respondents

Appointments

Number

Percent

Male
Respondents
Number

Percent

Full Time
With Tenure

19

45.2

62

70.5

Full Time
Without Tenure

12

28.6

18

20.5

Yearly
Appointment

2

4.8

7

8.0

Other

9

21.4

1

1.0

Total

42

100.0

88

100.0

Data Relevant to Questions Examined
Data Related to the
Employment of Faculty Women
m Higher Education:
Category 1 (Hypotheses 1(a),
11(a) and III (a))"
The interaction for sex and college for Category
1 was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,124) = 2.3652,
p < .1266).

Here, and throughout the remainder of the

results section, the size of all tests will be taken as
= .05.

Since the test for interaction was not signif­

icant, the test for a main effect for sex was examined.
This study contained unequal cell frequencies; therefore,
the effects for college and sex were confounded.

After

209
first controlling for differences in college, the main
effect for sex was thus tested and found to be signif­
icant (F(l,124) = 4.6393, p < .0332).

Since the main

effect for sex and college were confounded, and because
the main effect for sex was found to be significant,
thus, the main effect for college was not examined.
Sample mean for women faculty members was 18.715, and
for men faculty members the sample mean was 17.657.
Close examination of the data revealed that
women faculty members were much less in agreement than
men faculty members that employment opportunities were
equal for faculty women in higher education.

While a

large majority of women did not believe that employing
agents favored employing women better qualified than men
as members of the faculty, most men felt that better
qualified women are favored.

Although both groups did

not believe that employing agents tend to think auto­
matically in terms of men when filling a new position on
the faculty, women seemed more skeptical than their male
counterparts.

Neither group felt that higher education

institutions should have a greater proportion of men
than women on their faculties; however, women are more
adamant in their opinion regarding this variable.

The

results seem to indicate that a significant majority of
women faculty members tend to perceive inequities in
employment opportunities for faculty women, while men

210
tend to believe equality in employment opportunities
exists for women.

Percentages are presented in Appendix

F, and analysis of variance results and summarized in
Table 12.

TABLE 12.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
1.
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

.40114

.02421

.8767

Sex

1

76.86115

4.63929

.0332

College by Sex

1

39.18559

2.36520

.1266

Within Groups

124

16.56753

Total

127

Data Related to the
Advancement of Faculty Women
in Higher Education—
Promotion: Category 2
(Hypotheses 1(b), 11(b) and

mrr

---------------

The interaction of sex and college for Category
2 was found to be significant (F(l,126, p < .00342).
Since there is a significant interaction, the main
effects for sex and college cannot be tested.

Figure 1

gives a graphic representation of the sample means.
From this figure it can be seen that the reactions of
respondents cannot be distinguished from the two

2.0

—

1.9 1.8

•v

* males

-

• females

1.7
1.6

—

1.5 211

1.4 1.3
1.2

-

1.1

-

1.0
University
College
Figure 1.— Sample Means for Category 2.

College of
Business

212

colleges under examination.

As a result, main effects

for sex and college could not be examined.
For faculty women, the sample means were
1.91952 and 1.54259;
1.78452 and 1.89 554.
and Language

sample means for men faculty were
Sample means for American Thought

(ATL) were 1.91952 and 1.78452;

for the

College of Business sample means were 1.54259 and
1.89554.

Grand mean was 1.85173.
Although both groups indicated that faculty

women do meet the preparation requirements for promotion
to upper ranks, and stay in their positions long enough
to earn promotions to upper ranks, ATL women were more
adamant in their expressed opinions than were men in
both colleges.

An overwhelming majority of both

groups agreed that there should be a merit system of
appointment and promotion in higher education regardless
of sex.

However, a large majority of women believed

that faculty women are often bypassed for promotion,
while a large majority of faculty men disagreed with the
statement.

Both groups felt that faculty women do not

have equal opportunity for promotion.

Faculty women and

men disagreed with one another as to whether or not
faculty women attain promotion within the same time
period as faculty m e n in their departments.

Women felt

that women do not attain promotion on an equal basis
w i t h men, while men felt that women are promoted equally.

213
It may be concluded that it appeared both groups
agreed/ to a different degree, that there should be a
merit system of appointments and promotions in higher
education regardless of sex, and that women do meet the
necessary requirements for promotion.

However, the

groups disagreed that equal opportunity for promotion
exists for faculty women.

Women believed that oppor­

tunities for promotion are not equal, while men believed
that such opportunities as are presently in existence
are equal for women faculty members in academe.

Sample

means and percentages are presented in Appendices F and
G.

Analysis of variance results are summarized in

Table 13.

TABLE 13.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
2.
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

.00195

.01750

.89495

Sex

1

.01879

.16877

.68190

College by Sex

1

.99091

8.90056

.00342

Within Groups

126

.11133

Total

129

214
Data Related to the
Advancement of Faculty
Women m Higher Education—
Payi
Category 3 (Hypotheses
1(c), 11(c), and 111(c))
The interaction of sex and college for Category
3 was found to be significant (F(1,126) = 4.7084, p <
.0319).

Since there is a significant interaction, the

main effects for sex and college cannot be tested.

From

Figure 2, which gives a pictorial representation of the
data, it can be inferred that there is a main effect for
college.

Sample means for University College were

1.58796 and 1.66250.

Sample means for the College of

Business were 3.0000 and 3.97917.
Figure 2 clearly shows that college differences
were more significant than sex differences.

Respondents

in University College, more than respondents in the
College of Business, agreed that women and men deserve
equal pay for equal work in higher education, and that
there is a definite relationship between publication and
salary increases in the respective departments.

Faculty

men in University College were more in agreement with
their female colleagues in that same college.

There was

less disagreement in University College that salaries
are the same for faculty women and men within rank than
there was agreement in the College of Business that the
statement was true.

Business College respondents were a

great deal more adamant in their expressed attitudes

215
4.0—
3.9—

/
/

3.8—

/

3 .7 —

/

3.6—

/
/

3.5—

/

3.4—

/

3.3—

/

3.2—

/
/

3.1—
3 .0—

(3.0, 3.9)

/

2.9—
2 . 8—

University
College

2.7

—

2 .6—

College of
Business

2.5—
2.4—
2.3—
2 .2—

2 .1—
2 .0—

1.9—
1 .8—
1.7—
1 .6—

(1.6, 1.7)

1.5—
1.4—
1.3—
1 .2—

1 .1—
1.0----Females
Figure 2

■Sample Means for Category 3.

Males

216
than were the respondents in University College.

The

results indicated that in this category type of response
depended upon location of respondents in either Univer­
sity College or the College of Business.

For example,

sample means indicated that respondents in University
College were less adamant in their expressed opinions
and attitudes than were respondents in the College of
Business that women should be paid equally, that present
salaries are not equal, and that a faculty member who
does not publish finds it difficult to receive salary
increases.

Sample means and percentages are presented

in Appendices F and G.

Analysis of variance results are

summarized in Table 14.

TABLE 14.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
3.
Source

df

Mean Square

P Less Than

College

1

158.85147

214.59980

.00001

Sex

1

1.81282

2.50609

.11591

1

3.40587

4.70835

.03189

Within Groups

126

.72337

Total

129

College by

Sex

217

Data Related to the
Advancement of Faculty
Women in Higher Education—
T e n u r e : Category 4
(Hypotheses 1(d), II(d),
and I I K cTTT
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be nonsignificant

(F(l,126) = .33749, p < .56232).

Since the test for interaction was not significant, the
test for a main effect for sex was examined, and it was
found to be nonsignificant
.99639).

(F(1,126) = .00002, p <

The main effect for college was then examined

and was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,126) = 1.19111,
p < .27719).

The entire sample mean for this category

was 2.13590.
Respondents in both colleges agreed that faculty
women have equal likelihood of attaining tenure, that
tenure evaluation criteria are the same for faculty
women and men in their departments, and that publication
pretty much determines tenure decisions.

No significant

differences were observed in this category.

Sample

means and percentages are presented in Appendices F and
G.
15.

Analysis of variance results are summarized in Table

218
TABLE 15.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
4.
Source

df

P Less Than

Mean Square

College

1

.22612

1.19111

.27719

Sex

1

.00000

.00002

.99639

College by Sex

1

.06407

.33749

.56232

Within Groups

126

.18984

Total

129

Data Related to the
Advancement of Faculty Women
m Higher Education— Career
Development; Category 5
^Hypotheses I(d), 11(d), and
III (d))
The interaction of sex and college for Category
5 was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,125) = 1.07992,
p < .30072).

Since the test for interaction was not

significant, the test for a main effect for sex was
examined.

As a result of the unequal cell frequencies

present in the study, the effects for college and sex
were confounded.

The main effect for sex was thus

tested by first controlling for differences in college,
and was found to be significant (F(1,125) = 18.26648,
p < .00004).

Sample mean for female faculty members was

2.143; sample mean for male faculty members was 2.977.
Comparability of composite sample means of women
and men faculty members suggests that although both

219
groups agreed that career development for women in
higher education is a slow process, they did perceive
faculty women as sharing sufficient interest in advance­
ment and putting forth effort to attain high positions.
Also, both groups (faculty women and faculty men)
expressed the opinion that faculty women could attain
the administrative position of chairperson of their
respective departments.

Both groups also believed that

additional assignments were made on an equal basis.

It

may be concluded that female and male faculty members
agreed that career development opportunities were equal
for women and men in their departments.

Sample means

and percentages are presented in Appendices P and G.
Analysis of variance results are summarized in Table 16.

TABLE 16.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
5.
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

9.93430

18.26648

.00004

Sex

1

12.30278

22.62147

.00001

1

.58732

1.07992

.30072

College by

Sex

Within Groups
Total

125
128

.54385

220

Data Related to the
Advancement of Faculty Women
in Higher Education— Summary:
Category 6 (Hypotheses iff)/

11(f), and III(fTT
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be significant (F(l,125) - 8.14663, p < .00505).

Since

there was a significant interaction, the main effects
for sex and college cannot be tested.

Figure 3 gives a

pictorial representation of the data.

From this figure

it can be inferred that there is a main effect for
college.

The significance of main effect for college

precludes further investigation of main effects for sex
and college.

University College sample means were

1.91123 and 1.89587.

Sample means for the College of

Business were 1.95956 and 2.31688.
Both respondents in the College of Business and
in University College believed to a different degree
that promotion, pay, tenure, and career development were
not equal for faculty women.

Respondents in University

College were more adamant in their opinions and expressed
attitudes.

Males in the College of Business agreed less

than all other groups

(males or females in Univeristy

College or females in the College of Business).

It is

thus tentatively concluded that the reactions of respon­
dents to the questions concerning advancement of faculty
women in higher education depended, to a significant
extent, on whether or not they were faculty members in

221

University College

3.0—

- College of Business

2.9—
2 .8—

2.7—
2 .6—

2.5—
2.4—
2.3—
(2.0, 2.3)

2 .2—

2 .1—

2 .0—
1.9—
1 .8—

(1.9, 1.9)

1.7—
1 .6—

1.5—
1.4—
1.3—
1 .2—

1 .1—
1.0-----

^----------------- h—
Female

Figure 3 ,— Sample Means for Category 6.

Male

222

University College or the College of Business.

Sample

means and percentages are presented in Appendices F and
G.

Analysis of variance results are summarized in Table

17.

TABLE 17.— Summary of Analysis of Variance,for Category

6.

df

Source

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

4.35082

61.43161

.00001

Sex

1

.10882

1.50860

.22166

College by Sex

1

.57698

8.14663

.00505

Within Groups

125

.07082

Total

128

Data Related to Personality
Characteristics of Faculty
Women m Higher Education;
Category 7 (Hypotheses 1(g),
11(g), and III(g)T
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be nonsignificant

(F(l,126) = 1.09262, p < .29789).

Since the test for interaction was not significant, the
test for a main effect for sex was examined.

It was

found to be nonsignificant (F(1,126) = .77226, p <
.38119).

The main effect for college was then examined

and was found to be nonsignificant

(F(1,126) = 2.83804,

223
p < .09453.

The entire sample mean for this category

was 2.43339.
The raw data seem to show a strong trend toward
differences in the expressed opinions and attitudes
between respondents in University College and respon­
dents in the College of Business.

In sharp contrast to

the majority of respondents in the College of Business/
a majority of respondents in University College indi­
cated that they believed faculty women are as competi­
tive in seeking advancement as faculty men, that faculty
women have less of a professional commitment than do
faculty men, that faculty women are more fearful than
faculty men of conflicts that might endanger their
professional career, that faculty women do accept
subordination more readily than faculty men, and that
faculty women should learn to broaden their career
interests more persistently than they have to date.
There were strong trends indicating that the two
colleges agreed on several issues in this category.

For

example, a majority of respondents from both colleges
agreed that faculty women do want full equality, even if
it does mean equal responsibility.

Both groups (Univer­

sity College and the College of Business) agreed that
faculty women do assume responsibility in decision­
making as rapidly as faculty men, that decision-making
is an important part of the work of faculty women, that

224
they do have equal Input into decision-making is an
important part of the work of faculty women in higher
education.

The results of the analysis indicated that

significance was not present at the .05 level; however,
it did appear that a strong trend toward college dif­
ferences was observed.

Sample means and percentages

are presented in Appendices F and G.

Analysis of

variance results are summarized in Table 18.

TABLE 18.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
7.
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

.62681

2.83804

.09453

Sex

1

.17056

.77226

.38119

College by Sex

1

.24132

1.09262

.29789

Within Groups

126

.22086

Total

129

Data Related to Job Mobility
of Faculty Women in Higher
Education;
Category 8
(Hypotheses I(h), II(h), and
III(h)?
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be nonsignificant (F(l,126) = 3.60240, p < .05998).
Since the test for interaction was not significant, the
test for a main effect for sex was examined and found to

225
be nonsignificant

(F(l,126) = 3.23638, p < .07449).

Next, the main effect for college was examined and found
to be significant (F(l,126)
University College,

= 7.96600, p < .0054).

For

the sample means were 2.08333 and

1.78750; sample means for the College of Business were
1.50000 and 1.68750, respectively.
More respondents in University College indicated
that they did not believe that the turnover rate of
faculty women is higher than that of faculty men, and
that factulty women are less mobile geographically than
faculty men, while a slight majority of respondents in
the College of Business expressed disagreement.

Sample

means and percentages are presented in Appendices F and
G.

Analysis of variance results are summarized in

Table 19.

TABLE 19.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category

8.

Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

2.14995

7.96600

.00554

Sex

1

.87347

3.23638

.07449

College by Sex

1

97225

3.60240

05998

Within Groups

126

26989

Total

129

226
Data Related to Teaching
Effectiveness of Faculty
Women in r ’
"
Category
ITT i), and III (i))
The interaction of sex and college for Category
9 was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,126) = .14770,
p < .70139).

Since the test for interaction was not

significant, the test for a main effect for sex was
examined.

As a result of the unequal cell frequencies

present in the study, the effects for college and sex
were confounded.

The main effect for sex was tested by

first controlling for differences in college, and was
found to be significant (F(1,126) *= 14.47348, p <
.03639).

Since the main effect for sex was significant,

the main effect for college was not examined.
For women the sample mean was 2.5635, and for
men the sample mean was 2.3504.

The results indicated

that a majority of both groups (faculty women and
faculty men) disagreed, to a different degree, that
faculty women are more dedicated to teaching, and more
responsive to students than faculty men with more
faculty men than women expressing more adamant disagree­
ment.

Both groups, however, overwhelmingly agreed that

faculty women have equal opportunity for student super­
vision.

Sample means and percentages are presented in

Appendices F and G.

Analysis of variance results are

summarized in Table 20.

227

TABLE 20.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
9.
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

.18071

.72786

.39520

Sex

1

1.11064

4.47348

.03639

College by Sex

1

.03667

.14770

.70139

Within Groups

126

.24827

Total

129

Data Related to Research and
Other Scholarly Writing of
Faculty Women xn Higher
Education:
Category 10
(Hypotheses l(j), II (j),
and III{ JTT
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be nonsignificant (F(l,126) = .00020, p < .98881).
After it was found that the test for a main effect for
sex was examined and found to be nonsignificant
(F(l,126) = .59802, p < .44078).

The main effect for

college was examined and found to be nonsignificant
(F(1,126) = .62914, p < .42916).
The entire sample mean for Category 10 was
2.41795.

The results show no differences in the

expressed opinions and attitudes of the two groups in
their indication that faculty women do not publish less
than faculty men, that faculty women have equal research
possibilities, and that they have equal opportunity for

228
placement of journal articles.

Sample means and

percentages are presented in Appendices F and G.

Analy­

sis of variance results are summarized in Table 21.

TABLE 21.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
10 .
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

.13935

.69214

.42916

Sex

1

.13246

.59802

.44078

College by Sex

1

.00004

.00020

.98881

Within Groups

126

.22150

Total

129

Data Related to Contributions
to Profession of Faculty
Women in Higher Education;
Category 11 (Hypotheses I(k),
II(k), and III(k))
The interaction of sex and college for Category
11 was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,123) = 2.5189,
p < .11505).

Since the test for interaction was not

significant, the test for a main effect for sex was
examined and was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,123) =
.73519, p < .39287).

Next, the main effect for college

was examined and found to be significant (F(1,123) =
4.68970, p < .03227).

229
For University College, the sample means were
2.09444 and 1.96709.

Sample means for the College of

Business were 1.74444 and 1.90326.
that a majority of both groups

Results indicated

(women and men faculty

members in both colleges) believed that faculty women
put in their share of work and often work more than the
normal scheduled hours.

They also felt that women share

equally in departmental and professional activities.
For example, it is believed by both groups that women do
not serve on prestigious committees more than their
male colleagues, but that they do share equally on
important deparmental committees, are encouraged to seek
offices in professional organizations, and are equally
provided with funds to attend conferences.

Sample means

and percentages are presented in Appendices F and G.
Analysis of variance results are summarized in Table 22.

TABLE 22.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category

11.

Source

df

Mean Square

P Less Than

College

1

.63048

4.68970

.03227

Sex

1

.09884

.73519

.39287

1

.33864

2.51891

.11505

Within Groups

125

.13444

Total

126

College by

Sex

230
Data Related to Acceptance
by Associates of Faculty
Women in Higher Education:
Category 12 (Hypotheses
1(1), 11(1) , and IIl(l))
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be nonsignificant (F(l,125) = .01623, p < .89884).
After it was found that the test for interaction was not
significant, the test for a main effect for sex was
examined.

It was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,125) =

.18096, p < .67126).

Following next, the main effect

for college was examined and found to be significant
(F(1,125) = 15.09145, p < .0016).

For University

College, the sample means were 2.36111 and 2.37520.

For

the College of Business, the sample means were 2.48009
and 2.50630.
The results indicated that respondents in both
colleges agreed, to a different degree, that faculty
women are regarded favorably by their colleagues, that
faculty women feel that co-workers make them feel an
important part of the department, that faculty women
have equal opportunity to interact with colleagues, and
that faculty women usually take opportunities for
socializing.

A small majority of women agreed to the

above statements, while a large majority of men
expressed agreement.
While a majority of faculty men disagreed, a
majority of faculty women agreed that faculty women are

231
taken less seriously than faculty men when sent out to
represent the institution; that faculty women# more
often than men# are asked patronizing questions or
comments; and, faculty women# more often than men# often
hear hostile questions or comments.

Faculty women were

more adamant in their expressed agreement than were
faculty men in their disagreement.

Respondents in

neither college believed that faculty women are less
responsive to their colleagues than faculty men, or
faculty women do not feel that co-workers make them feel
an important part of the department.

Sample means and

percentages are presented in Appendices F and G.

Analy­

sis of variance results are summarized in Table 23.

TABLE 23.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
12 .
Source

df

Mean Square

P Less Than

College

1

.56744

15.09145

.00016

Sex

1

.00680

.18096

.67126

1

.00061

.01623

.89884

125

.03760

College by

Sex

Within Groups
Total

128

232
Data Related to Use of Full
Potential of Faculty Women
in Higher Education;
Category 13 (Hypotheses
I(m), II(m), and IIl(mT)
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be nonsignificant (F(l,126) = .16041, p < .68946).

Once

it was found that the test for interaction was not
significant, the test for a main effect for sex was
examined.

It was found to be nonsignificant (F(1,125) =

.15060, p < .69861).

Next, the main effect for college

was examined and found to be nonsignificant (F(1,126) =
3.35363, p < .06942).

The entire sample mean for

Category 13 was 2.49462.
The results indicated that there was no dif­
ference in the expressed opinions and attitudes of the
two groups (women and men faculty members) with both
groups agreeing that the exploration of the potential
of women in higher education has been neglected, and
that sex discrimination in employment practice is an
important issue for faculty women.

Sample means and

percentages are presented in Appendices F and G.

Analy­

sis of variance results are summarized in Table 24.

233
TABLE 24.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
13.
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

.39753

3.35363

.06942

Sex

1

.01785

.15060

.69861

College by Sex

1

.01901

.16041

.68946

Within Groups

126

.11854

Total

126

Data Related to the Job
Satisfaction of Faculty
Women in Higher Education:
Category 14 (Hypotheses
l(n)T II(n), and 3 (n))
The interaction of sex and college for Category
14 was found to be nonsignificant
p < .92443).

(F(1,123) = .00903,

Since the test for interaction was not

significant, the test for a main effect for sex was
examined.

This study contained unequal cell frequencies;

therefore, the effects for college and sex were con­
founded.

After first controlling for differences in

colleges, the main effect for sex was thus tested and
found to be significant (F(1,123) = 11.67538, p <
.00086).

Since the main effect for sex and college was

confounded, and because the main effect for sex was
found to be significant, the main effect for college was
not examined.

Sample mean for women faculty members was

234
1.6071, and for men faculty members the sample mean was
1.1919.
Results showed that both groups (women and men
faculty members) overwhelmingly indicated that it is
important for faculty women to be satisfied with their
jobs, and that support from department chairpersons has
fostered job satisfaction in their respective
departments.
In contrast to the beliefs of faculty men, most
faculty women did not believe that faculty women are
satisfied with their jobs.

A large majority of faculty

men agreed that achievement of present rank in their
department within a reasonable time period has attri­
buted, in part, to job satisfaction, while a smaller
majority of faculty women agreed with this statement.
Sample means and percentages are presented in Appendices
F and 6.

Analysis of variance results are summarized in

Table 25.
Data Related to Alternative
Work Patterns for Faculty
Women in Higher Education;
Category 1$ (Hypotheses I(o),
II(o), and Ill(o))'
The interaction for college and sex was found to
be nonsignificant (F(l,123) = .26689, p < .60636).

After

finding that the test for interaction was not signif­
icant, this researcher examined the test for a main

235

TABLE 25.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
14.
Source

df

Mean Square

P Less Than

College

1

2.09491

4.98450

.02738

Sex

1

4.90699

11.67538

.00086

1

.00380

.00903

.92443

College by

Sex

Within Groups
Total

123
126

.42029

236
effect for sex, which was found to be nonsignificant
{F (1,123) = .92313, p < .33854).

Next, the main effect

for college was examined and found to be nonsignificant
(F(1,123) = .92719, p < .33748).

The entire sample mean

for this category was 2.91245.
The results indicated that both groups agreed
that alternative work patterns such as job-sharing,
flex-time and part-time should be established;

that

professional persons with heavy responsibilities should
have the opportunity to assume a reduced load temporar­
ily;

that part-time faculty should enjoy many of the

rewards and benefits which accrue to regular faculty
status; and that regular part-time faculty members
should be evaluated.

Sample means and percentages are

presented in Appendices F and G.

Analysis of variance

results are summarized in Table 26.

TABLE 26.— Summary of Analysis of Variance for Category
15.
Source

df

Mean Square

F

P Less Than

College

1

.15224

.92719

.33748

Sex

1

.15157

.92313

.33854

College by Sex

1

.04382

.26689

.60636

Within Groups

123

.16420

Total

126

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

The major purpose of this study was to investi­
gate current attitudes and opinions of faculty women and
faculty men toward faculty women in higher education in
order to facilitate the identification of certain
significant factors which might influence the general
attitude of other faculty members toward faculty women
in academe.
The subjects of this study consisted of the
faculty women and men in selected departments of Univer­
sity College and the College of Business at Michigan
State University during the academic year 1978-79.

In

University College, the Department of American Thought
and Language was surveyed.

In the College of Business,

five departments were surveyed, including Business Law
and Office Education, Hotel and Restaurant Management,
Management, Marketing and Transportation, and Economics.
The survey data were obtained during the fall of 1979.
A modified version of the data gathering device developed
by researchers and based on opinions and assumptions
237

238
found in the literature related to the thesis topic was
used for this study.
Results of the survey were used to test the
hypotheses posed in Chapters 1 and 4:

There is no

significant difference of expressed opinions and atti­
tudes of (1) selected departments of University College
and the College of Business,

(2) faculty women and

faculty men, and (3) college by sex with regard to
employment and advancement opportunities, teaching
effectiveness, production of research and other
scholarly writing, contributions to profession, accep­
tance by associates, use of full potential, job satis­
faction, and alternative work patterns of women faculty
members in higher education.
Summary of the Findings of
the Study
A summary of the findings of the study is
presented in Table 27.
Employment Opportunities
Significant differences in opinions and atti­
tudes were reported between faculty women and faculty
men with regard to equal employment opportunities for
faculty women in higher education.
In sharp contrast to the opinions of the major­
ity of faculty men, a significant majority of faculty

TABLE 27.— Summary of the Findings of the Study.
College

Category

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

8.
9.
10.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

University College of
Difference Sig.
College
Business

Women

Men Difference Sig.

17.7

17.6

.1

M.S.

18.7

17.1

1.6

Sig.

1.8

1.9

.1

N.S.

1.9

1.8

.1

N.S.

1.6
2.2
2.5

3.9
2.1
3.0

2.3
.1
.5

Sig.
N.S.
Sig.

1.8
2.2
2.1

2.9
2.1
3.0

1.1
.1
.9

N.S.
N.S.
Sig.

1.9

2.3

.4

Sig.

1.9

2.1

.2

N.S.

2.4

2.5

.1

N.S.

2.4

2.5

.1

N.S.

1.9

1.7

.2

Sig.

2.6

1.7

.9

N.S.

2.5

2.4

.1

N.S.

2.6

2.4

.2

Sig.

2.4

2.5

.1

N.S.

2.4

2.5

.1

N.S.

2.0

1.9

.1

Sig.

2.1

1.9

.2

N.S.

2.4

2.5

.1

Sig.

2.4

2.5

.1

N.S.

2.5
1.9

2.4
2.1

.1
.2

N.S.
Sig.

2.5
1.7

2.5
2.1

0
.4

N.S.
Sig.

2.9

3.0

.1

N.S.

2.9

3.0

.1

N.S.

239

7.

Employment
Advancement—
Promotion
Advancement— Pay
Advancement— Tenure
Advancement— Career
Advancement—
Summary
Personality
Characteristics
Job Mobility
Teaching
Effectiveness
Personality and
Other Scholarly
Writing
Contributions to
the Profession
Acceptance by
Associates
Full Potential
Job Satisfaction
Alternative Work
Patterns

Sex

240
women indicated that employment opportunities are not
equal for female faculty members.

While both groups

felt that employing agents do not think automatically in
terms of men when filling a new position on the faculty#
only a slight majority of women held their belief as
opposed to a large majority of men.

Also# both women

and men faculty members agreed that institutions should
not have a greater proportion of men than women on their
faculties, with women disapproving more adamantly than
their male colleagues.
Most faculty women# as opposed to most faculty
men# believed that# when faced with a choice between
hiring a woman or a man for a faculty position# most
employing agents would opt for the man, even if less
qualified than the woman candidate.
Advancement Opportunities
Significant differences in opinions and atti­
tudes were reported between faculty women and faculty
men in two of the four categories relating to equal
advancement opportunities for faculty women in higher
education.
Promotion
The two groups expressed no significant dif­
ferences of opinion# with a majority of both indicating

241
that there should be a merit system of appointment and
promotion in higher education regardless of sex.
Both groups agreed that faculty women meet
preparation requirements for promotion, and that they do
stay in their ranks long enough to earn promotions.
However, although the groups agreed that women do not
have equal opportunity for promotions, men believed that
there is less inequality, while women were more adamant
in their beliefs that promotion differentials favored
men.
Pay
Significant differences in opinions were
reported between the two groups
the College of Business)

(University College and

in terms of equal pay for

faculty women in higher education.
Both groups felt that women should be paid
equally; however, responses across the two colleges
indicated that a significantly larger majority of
faculty members in University College than faculty
members in the College of Business expressed the opinion
that equal pay, regardless of sex, should be the pre­
vailing practice.

Male respondents in both colleges

reported that salaries were the same for both sexes
within rank, while women in both colleges believed that
salaries were not equal.

As a result, the data indicated

242
that significantly more faculty members in University
College viewed the salary question more as one of
equality.

Faculty responses across the two colleges

differed in terms of the perceived relationship between
salary and publication, with most women and fewer faculty
men in University College indicating a high correlation
between salary and publication, as opposed to their
colleagues in the College of Business.
Tenure
No significant differences in opinions were
reported between faculty women and men with regard to
equal opportunity for tenure of female faculty members in
higher education.
Both groups agreed that there is no difference in
tenure evaluation criteria for women or men faculty
members, that faculty women have equal opportunity for
attaining tenure, and that number of publications
directly affects tenure decisions.
Career Development
Significant differences in opinions were reported
between faculty women and faculty men in terms of equal
opportunity for career development of faculty women in
higher education.
A majority of both groups
members)

(women and men faculty

indicated that advancement of women is a slow

243
process.

However, a significantly large majority of

women, as opposed to men, indicated advancement was
slower for faculty women.

Both groups felt that women

do put forth adequate effort to earn advancement, how­
ever.

While a large majority of men and of women

indicated that it would be appropriate for a woman to
head their respective departments, a significantly
larger majority of women than men expressed this
viewpoint.
Personality Characteristics
The two groups expressed no significant dif­
ferences of opinion with regard to personality character­
istics of faculty women.
Female and male faculty members both agreed that
faculty women have as much professional commitment as
faculty men.

Both agreed that, not only is decision­

making an important part of the work of faculty women,
but also faculty women do have equal input into decision­
making responsibilities as readily as their male
colleagues.

Both groups agreed that faculty women want

full equality, even if it does mean equal responsibility.
The two groups disagreed, however, not to a
significant degree, on a number of personality character­
istics.

While the majority of male faculty members

disagreed, most women believed that female faculty

244
members are not as competitive in seeking advancement as
faculty men, that faculty women accept subordination
more readily than faculty men, that faculty women are
more fearful than faculty men of conflicts that might
endanger their professional status, and, finally, that
faculty women should learn to broaden their career
interests more persistently than they have to date.
Job Mobility
Respondents from the two colleges expressed
significant differences of opinion with respect to job
mobility of faculty women in higher education.
More faculty members from University College, in
contrast to the College of Business, believed that the
turnover rate of faculty women is higher than that of
faculty men, and that women are less mobile geographcally than faculty men.
Teaching Effectiveness
There were significant differences of expressed
opinion between the two groups in the category relating
to teaching effectiveness of faculty women in higher
education.
Although a large majority of both groups
(faculty women and faculty men) did not consider faculty
women to be more dedicated to teaching, or more respon­
sive to students than faculty men and that faculty women

245
are not prevented from being effective teachers as a
result of cultural attitudes of students and of men
colleagues,

faculty men were considerably more adamant

in their beliefs concerning these issues than were
faculty women.

Both groups overwhelmingly agreed that

faculty women have equal opportunity for student
supervision.
Research and Other
Scholarly Writing
The two groups expressed a lack of significant
differences with regard to this category.
A large majority of both groups believed that
faculty women do not publish less than faculty men, that
faculty women have equal research possibilities, and
they have equal opportunity for placement of journal
articles.
Contributions to Profession
Significant differences in responses were
reported between respondents in University College and
the College of Business in relation to faculty w o m e n ’s
contributions to the profession.
Although both groups agreed that faculty women
often work more than the normal scheduled hours, responses
from University College were significantly larger and
more adamant than responses from the College of Business.

246
The majority of both groups (University College
and College of Business) indicated that faculty women
have equal participation in departmental and profes­
sional activities with the College of Business expressing
slightly stronger agreement.

Although both groups agreed

that faculty women serve equally on departmental com­
mittees, the groups did not feel that women served as
often on prestigious committees as faculty men.
Both groups indicated that they believed faculty
women were encouraged by their colleagues to seek
offices in professional organizations on an equal basis
with male faculty members.
Acceptance by Associates
There were significant differences of expressed
opinion between respondents in University College and
respondents in the College of Business concerning this
category.
The two groups expressed significant differences
of opinion, with a large majority of respondents from
University College indicating agreement that faculty
women are not taken as seriously as faculty men when sent
out to represent the university, and a majority of
respondents from the College of Business expressing
disagreement with the statement.

247
Both groups believed that faculty women are as
responsive to their colleagues as faculty men, with
respondents in the College of Business more adamant in
their agreement.
A small majority of faculty members from
University College and a larger majority of their
colleagues from the College of Business indicated that
they believed that not only do faculty women have equal
opportunity to interact with their colleagues, but also
they feel co-workers do make them feel an important
part of their respective departments.
By sharp contrast, however, the two groups
expressed significant differences of opinion when asked
whether faculty women believe that faculty men patronize
them, or show hostility toward them.

A large majority

of faculty members in University College believed that
faculty women, more often than men, are asked patroniz­
ing questions or comments, as opposed to a smaller
majority of faculty members in the College of Business
who indicated disagreement.

Respondents in University

College were more adamant in their agreement, however,
than were respondents in the College of Business in
their disagreement.

More members of University College

than members in the College of Business believed that
faculty women, more often than men, often hear hostile
questions or comments.

A smaller majority of respondents

248
from University College expressed agreement, while a
significantly larger majority of faculty members from
the College of Business expressed disagreement.
Both groups felt that women faculty members
usually take opportunities for socializing.
Use of Full Potential
Both groups expressed no significant differences
of opinion with regard to use of full potential of
faculty women in higher education.
A very large majority of faculty women and men
agreed that faculty women who wish to develop their
potential do not have adequate opportunity to do so, and
that the exploration of the potential of women in higher
education has been neglected.

In both instances, the

male majority was larger and more adamant.
A majority of both faculty women and faculty men
believed sex discrimination in employment practice to be
an important issue for faculty women.

Also, both groups

agreed that faculty women feel discriminated against in
their jobs because of sex, with the female majority more
adamant in their opinion.
Although both groups felt that faculty women are
not discriminated against because of their political
views about the women's movement, and that faculty women
feel it is important to express their views about the

249
women’s movement where they work, the expressed opinion
of the male majority was considerably greater than that
of females and more adamant.
Job Satisfaction
Significant differences in opinion were reported
between faculty women and faculty men across colleges
with regard to job satisfaction of faculty women in
higher education.
Both groups indicated that it is important for
faculty women to be satisfied with their jobs; however,
the two groups expressed significant disagreement in
their opinion as to whether women are indeed satisfied
with their jobs or not.

A significant majority of women

believed that women are not satisfied with their jobs,
while men believed the opposite to be true.

Also,

respondents in the College of Business believed that
women are satisfied with their jobs, as opposed to the
majority of respondents in University College who
indicated that they did not believe that women have job
satisfaction.
Both groups agreed that support from the depart­
ment chairperson has fostered job satisfaction, and that
job satisfaction is attributed, at least in part, to the
fact that rank was achieved within a reasonable time.
With regard to the relationship between rank and job

250
satisfaction, significantly more men than women
expressed agreement.
Alternative Work Patterns
The two groups expressed no significant dif­
ferences of opinion with regard to alternative work
patterns of faculty women in higher education.
A majority of both groups indicated that alterna­
tive work patterns such as job sharing, flex-time and
part-time should be established throughout the institu­
tion.

Both groups also agreed that, for a limited

period, professional persons with heavy responsibilities
should have the opportunity to assume a reduced load
temporarily and to return to full-time status when their
schedules permit.

Both groups agreed that provision

should be made, on a limited basis, for those who wish
to teach regularly on a part-time basis to enjoy many of
the rewards and benefits which accrue to regular faculty
status.

In both instances, the female majority was

larger and more adamant.
The two groups expressed no differences of
opinion, agreeing that a special, but limited category
of part-time faculty should be created, who after the
expiration of a stipulated probationary period should be
eligible for the full range of faculty benefits, such as:
leave, promotion, support for scholarships, tenure,

251
opportunity to participate in decision-making, voting
privileges at faculty meetings, and retirement and other
fringe benefits.
The two groups expressed no differences of
opinion, with an overwhelming majority of faculty women
and a large majority of faculty men agreeing that, in
some instances, regular, but less than full-time faculty
members should be eligible to enjoy professional titles
in accordance with their abilities as teachers and
scholars and should have the benefit of equitable
standards for notification, pay scales, fringe benefits,
and opportunities for community service.
The two groups also agreed that regular, parttime faculty should be willing to undergo the same
critical professional evaluation accorded their full­
time colleagues and should make a contribution to such
areas as counseling, working on committees, and main­
taining office hours.
Conclusions
The findings of this study revealed significant
differences in opinion reported between faculty women
and faculty men on ten of the fifteen categories of the
attitude survey.

Although faculty women and faculty men

expressed no significant differences in their expressed
attitudes and opinions with regard to faculty women in

252
higher education in terms of tenure, personality
characteristics, research and other scholarly writing,
use of full potential, and alternative work patterns,
significant proportions differed in their beliefs with
regard to employment opportunities, promotion, pay,
career development, job mobility, teaching effectiveness,
contributions to the profession, acceptance by associates,
and job satisfaction.
In sharp contrast to their male colleagues,
faculty women did not believe that employment and
advancement opportunities were equal in higher educa­
tion.

For example, they believed that hiring dif­

ferentials, as well as rank and salary differentials
favored men.
Specific contrasts between opinions and attitudes
of males and females were also evident on questions about
career development.

Women tended to believe that

inequities existed in the advancement process and that,
for women, the process was slower than it was for men.
These results are not surprising as the litera­
ture reveals that over the past decade women have
attempted to document discriminatory employment policies
and practices.

For example, Rossi expanded and updated

a review of numerous reports that examined attitudes
toward academic women for sixty-six colleges and
universities.

She analyzed factors considered prime

253
attributes of status including institutional participa­
tion rate, rank, and administrative activities.
Commenting on the contribution of these studies,
Robinson concluded that:
Probably their greatest contribution is the
consistent documentation of sex discrimina­
tion against faculty women on the nine
dimensions of status summarized in this
review.1
The findings of the present study also seem to
follow the general contentions of more recent research
which has been conducted analyzing specific dimensions
of barriers faced by faculty women.

For example, Young

examined obstacles to faculty w o m e n ’s career development
possibilities within colleges and universities and
concluded that women are restricted by comparison with
their male colleagues.

They are more likely to be

hired at a lower rank, remain at this rank longer, and
2
be paxd a lower salary.
The data indicated that women were fairly
adamant in their expressed opinion that their profes­
sional commitment was as strong as their male counter­
parts.

Although they did admit that they don't believe

they are as geographically mobile as men; however, they

1Rossi, "Discrimination and Demography Restrict
Opportunities,” p. 78.
2
Young, op. cit., pp. 41-42.

254
don't believe also that their turnover rate is higher
than that of men.
It was expected that women would not see them­
selves as geographically mobile as men based on cultural
influences, myths, and outright confusion.

Investiga­

tors, however, have indicated a relationship between
career success and geographical mobility.

For example,

Bradley and Silverleaf examined the relationship between
promotion prospects for faculty women and such factors
as geographical mobility and concluded that a definite
disadvantage in loss of promotion to faculty women was
the relative lack of mobility.

The researchers main­

tained in their findings that:
Geographical mobility was frequently
mentioned confirming the fact that married
women are often unable to make strategic
moves in the quest for high status appoint­
ments, but may have to move following their
husbands even when this may be detrimental
to their own career prospects.3
The findings showed fairly consistent agreement
between faculty women and faculty men across colleges
that faculty women are no more effective as teachers
than faculty men; however, men were more adamant in
their insistence of no sex differences in this category.

3

Judy Bradley and Jane Silverleaf, "Women
Teachers in Further Education," Educational Research 22
(November 1979):19.

255
While men reported that they believed that
faculty women feel accepted and supported by male
colleagues, women, on the other hand, disagreed.

Women

indicated that they did not think they were taken
seriously when sent out to represent the university, and
they believed that their male colleagues, too often,
tended to patronize them and to make hostile comments
about them.
Similarly, the data indicated that men faculty
members tended to believe that women were more satisfied
with their positions than were the expressed opinions of
women faculty members.

The majority of faculty men felt

that, on the whole, women were satisfied with their
jobs; however, women indicated that they were not
satisfied with their jobs, although they were satisfied
with certain aspects of their jobs, such as the rela­
tionship they have had with their department chairperson.
In one sense, the findings seem to substantiate
arguments of investigators found in the literature? in
another sense, the findings fail to go deeply into
arguments raised by other researchers.

Although more

specific charges such as unequal treatment of faculty
women in terms of hiring policies, duties, salary and
promotion are common features of investigations, and
supported by the findings of this study, general under­
representation of women at the faculty level based on

256
unfavorable attitudes toward them also represents the
main thrust of numerous reports, which go beyond the
scope of the present findings,

but which may be

important in understanding the

nature of the findings of

this investigation.

"A recurring theme," cites Feldman,

"is that many of the difficulties that academic women
face may be largely the result of a tradition of anti4

female discriminatory behavior within academia."
Graham and Strommer pointed out obstacles that have
limited the full participation
colleges and universities.

of women teachers in

In spite of evidence to the

contrary, persistent myths surround women's academic
career goals.

For example, one such myth is the assump­

tion that women are not as committed to their careers as
their male counterparts.

However, as Graham indicated,

research by Astin in 1967 revealed that 91 percent of
women doctoral recipients in the mid-50s were employed
5
seven years later.
Graham noted that another myth
serving to impede faculty w o m e n ’s professional growth in
academe is the idea that women make good teachers but
inadequate researchers, the latter being indispensable
to a successful academic career.

4

According to Graham,

Saul D. Feldman, Escape From the D o l l 's H o u s e ;
Women in Graduate Education (New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill,
1974) ,— p.' 9"
5
Graham, op. cit., p. 166.

257
the evidence indicates that women do, in fact, publish.
In spite of heavy teaching loads and other handicaps,
they still manage to become productive scholars.6
Important concepts raised by Strommer involved
issues of women's careers, myths about working women,
and faculty women's roles relative to women students.
Focus on the issue of careers for women has been
primarily on getting jobs for them.

Strommer pointed

out that in the American Scholar Demos reminded us that
the primary goal of the early feminists was not at
first about the right to vote, but about the right of
women to work outside the home.

Their aim was to expose

the myth of domesticity and all the rhetoric on womanin-the-home which early feminists despised.

Myths

about working women needed to be dispelled, Strommer
suggested, particularly those that stressed that women
do not need or do not want careers.

Providing figures

from the Women's Bureau, Strommer showed that one-tenth
of all women remain single and work for most of their
lives.

Of married women, one-tenth do not have child­

ren and these women work for most of their lives.
Reminding us that career aspirations are largely
socially derived and are rapidly changing, Strommer also
argued that "statements about the inherent talents or
6Ibid.

258
nature of women are likely to be disguised discrimination."

n

She concluded by suggesting that, as models,

faculty women must be concerned with all aspects of
education.8
As a whole, then, the unfinished story of
women's struggle to achieve equality of educational and
professional opportunity has been based, at least in
part, on their ability, first and foremost, to be able
to identify and then to be able to counteract prevailing
attitudes detrimental to their progress, and on their
efforts and determination to capitalize on those factors
favorable to their educational and professional
advancement.
The results of the present findings investi­
gating the attitudes and opinions of faculty women and
men in selected departments of University College and
the College of Business toward faculty women at Michigan
State University appear to substantiate the findings of
other investigators, such as Crim, which indicated that,
on the whole, faculty women and faculty men perceive
faculty women as dedicated, competent, responsive and

7

Strommer, op. cit., p. 85.

8Ibid.

g

Crim, op. ext., p. 82.

259
effective teachers and professionals in higher
education.

9

Recommendations
On the basis of the findings of this study, the
following recommendations are made:
1.

A better instrument for determining atti­

tudes and opinions among the faculty in higher education
should be developed.
2.

A review of all part-time and full-time

policies and procedures should be conducted by the
Affirmative Action Officer with a view toward recom­
mending programs that would eliminate any possibility of
discriminatory practices.
3.

Preservice and inservice training should be

provided for educational personnel with special emphasis
on programs and activities designed to provide equal
employment and career opportunities for faculty members
in higher education.
4.

Research, development, and educational

activities should be implemented to advance profes­
sional equity.
5.

Efforts should continue to be made to

introduce policy and structural changes to promote
increased involvement of women in academic life at all
levels and in all fields.

260
6.

Efforts should be made to identify and

eliminate artificial barriers and attitudes which
effectively prevent many women from seeking university
employment.

For example:

(a) Employment interviews and applications
should not discriminate through inquiries
into, or assumptions about, actual or
potential marital status, fertility plans,
or living arrangements.
(b) All other restrictive hiring policies and
practices should be abolished.
7.

Each department should have a national

roster of women talent with enough information about
each woman's accomplishments and special interests to
make it useful to people who want to identify women for
jobs and for advisory posts.
8.

Efforts should be made to insure equitable

staffing patterns which should include an intensive
search for competent females, particularly in tradi­
tionally male fields, such as business and engineering.
9.

Efforts should be made to insure that, once

hired, women should receive equal pay for equal rank and
receive promotions on an equal basis with male faculty
members.
10.

Every effort should be made to appoint

qualified women to faculty and administrative positions
and to university governing boards.

Perhaps the most

important single factor in creating an environment that

261
is as hospitable to the aspirations of women as to men
is to appoint women in significant numbers to senior
faculty and administrative posts in the university.
11.

Maternity leaves should be replaced by

parenthood and family sick leaves available to both
women and men.

Working schedules should provide suf­

ficient flexibility to accommodate child care and home
demands equally available to women and men.
12.

There should be a review of the part-time

employment policies and a consideration of the pos­
sibility of structuring part-time employment in a more
flexible manner and in such a way as to make certain
fringe benefits and tenure available to the part-time
faculty.
Suggestions for Further Study
On the basis of this study, the following sug­
gestions for further study are made:
1.

Consideration should be given to the conduct

of more research on women in higher education.

This

field is a new area for research and is practically
untapped.
2.

Consideration should be given to the conduct

of research into traditionally male
such as business and engineering.

dominated fields,

262
3.

A more intensive study of the determination

of actual personality differences between women and men,
in other departments at this university and in other
institutions of higher learning throughout the state,
should be conducted to provide more precise information.
4.
of research
5.
on each

Consideration should be given to the conduct
on minority women in higher education.
A longitudinal study should be conducted

of the following topics,

information

which would provide

to complement this present study:

(a)

A study of attitudes of faculty men toward
faculty women in higher education.

(b)

A study of attitudes of faculty men and
women toward minority faculty in higher
education.

(c) Differences in job mobility between women
and men faculty members in higher education.
(d) A comparative study of personality character­
istics of women and men faculty members in
higher education.
(e) A comparative study of secular and non­
secular institutions of higher education.
6.
status,

A study of faculty comparison by employment

sex and salary for both full-time and part-time

staff should be conducted.

APPENDICES

263

APPENDIX A
FIRST LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

264

265

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Education
Department of Administration and
Higher Education
East Lansing. Michigan 48823
August 1979

Tel. (517) 332-1471

Dear Faculty Member:
I am a candidate for the Ph.D. 1n the College of Education, Department of Administration and
Higher Education at Michigan State University. I am also an Instructor In the College of Arts
and Letters. The title of my dissertation Is "An Assessment of Attitudes Toward Women Faculty
at Michigan State University."
The dissertation will shed light not only on the attitudes and perceptions of women faculty
members toward their professional careers, but also the attitudes and perceptions of significant
male members of the profession toward female faculty members at Michigan State University. The
sample consists of selective male and female faculty members at Michigan State University. Some
of the data I need requires answers to the questions 1n the enclosed questionnaire. It seeks
Information about your academic background, employment history, current activities, some of your
past accomplishments, and attitudes about your job and about women faculty members at this
Institution. The data collected for this study will be strictly confidential and your
anonymity 1s guaranteed.
One of the main reasons that I am Interested In studying female faculty Is because as a black
faculty member I am keenly aware of the problems faced by women and minorities 1n Institutions
of higher education throughout this country and abroad, I am also aware of the fact that not
many systematic studies have been done on the assessment of attitudes of men toward female
faculty members or the attitudes of women toward other female faculty members. Through my dis­
sertation I am seeking to contribute to the research literature on female faculty 1n higher
education and to understand more fully Institutional, and psychological barriers, as well as
social constraints and how they affect female faculty members. The findings also should provide
Information that can lead to Improved conditions for women faculty 1n academe.
Therefore. I request that you fill out the enclosed questionnaire. Only about 25 minutes of
your time 1s needed. A self-addressed envelope 1s enclosed for your convenience. Presently, I
am on sabbatical without pay as I have a deadline to complete this portion of my work, and my
funds are limited; therefore, I will be grateful If you will obviate the necessity of a follow-up
by responding at your earliest convenience. Needless to say, your cooperation is sincerely
appreciated. If you have any questions you may call me at 332-1471.
Sincerely,

^_

j/nes N. Nevels
Ih.D. candidate
Department of Administration and Higher Education
College of Education
Michigan State University
P.S. The I.D. number on the questionnaire 1s for follow-up purposes only. Your name and the
entire 11st will be seen only by me and will be destroyed upon completion of the study.

APPENDIX B
SECOND LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

266

267

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Administration
and Higher Education
College of Education
East Lansing, Michigan
48823
September, 1979

Tel.

(517) 332-1471

Dear Colleague:
Approximately three weeks ago, I mailed you a question­
naire regarding your opinion toward faculty women in
higher education.
Undoubtly, because of numerous other
demands upon your time and attention, you have found it
difficult to return the form.
The response to the questionnaire has been enthusiastic
thus far.
I would like to stress that individual
responses will not be reported in the study and urge
your confidential participation.
I am enclosing another
copy of the questionnaire sent to you earlier in the
event that you have mislaid the original.
You will also
find another business reply envelope for your
convenience.
Won't you please take some of your time to complete the
questionnaire and return it to me at your earliest
convenience.
I would be most grateful for your support.

James N. Nevels
Ph.D. candidate
Department of Administration
and Higher Education
College of Education
Michigan State University

APPENDIX C
THIRD LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

268

269

JUST A REMINDER!J 1
Please remember to complete and return the forms which
were sent to you about three weeks ago.
Your return, along with those already received, will
improve the validity, reliability, and statistical
accuracy of this study of attitudes toward faculty in
higher education.
Your opinions need to be included in
the findings that can help us in the analysis and
improvement of professional opportunities for faculty
women.
Your efforts will be appreciated.
Please take a few
minutes from your busy schedule to complete and return
the questionnaire enclosed.

evels, Instructor

10/18/79

APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE

270

271

:.a. niMMr

0FINICNNAI11E FOR ITTmjOlRAL STUDY
OF FACULTY t O O IN HIGHER
EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY
T h u o p ln lo n n a lre ha» been d etlg n ad to l a i r n th e o p i n i o n and a t t i t u d e ! t M t d th e aap lo y aan t ana advancement o f fa c u lty
women. In a d d itio n , i t jo e k i genera 1 in fo rm atio n ab o u t c e r t a in d iffe re n c e * whlcn e x l i t between men in d unman f ic u lty
m e ^ e n . P l a n e f**l f m to i t p r t l t c a n d id ly your a t t i t u d e ! , and your o p in io n o f th a a t tlt u d a a o f o th a n avan i f you
cannot p r a t a n t evidence to l u o i t a n d a t a your vtewa.
P a r t I . —P to a ie eniw ar ovary i t a a .
!.

How aany y e a n na«a you baan m oloyad i t your o r a ta n t u n lv e n lty ?

2.

What departm ent a r a you in?

^

—

3,

How many y a a n Nava you Naan te ach in g In y o u r c u r r a n t d a p a rta a n t?

s.

what o tn a r p o a ltlo n i do you hold u lt h ln th a d a p a rta a n t? ( b la a ta chock i l l th a t apply)
a. dftBftrtBMt t u e u t t v * a f f l c t p
t.

.

_

a i io c l a c a naade d1v4«lon h atd

Cm c h a lro a rio n ftu n d ln a c o m l t t N
3. s o a c lfy u n ia t ita n d ln a eaaaH ttaa
H i t cna p o t l t i e m t h a t /e u hold a u t s l d t your tftoartm ant (ft.fl. e n a trp o rto n at < tefHv«r*fty c o m a lttM .
m u t a n t daan. a t e .)

ft.

5.

ah a t i t y o u r p r e ie n t rank? ( p l a n a enack ono) □ i n i tr u e t o r
Q m u t a n t p ro fe ia o r
□
“ o ro fo n o r
n d u tln o u lin a d /n a m e d o r o f a n o n n l o
l~~) la c tu r a r
f* | no ran k i dan Iona te a

S.

Mow long hava you n ald your p ra ia n t rank? _______

(.

a h a t kind o f a p p e ln trp n t da you hold?
□ y e a rly appointm ent ( i o f t money)□

[ j f u ll- tim e w ith tanuro
a c tin g

□

m in tin g

Q

2

m o d a ta a ro fin o r
Q o th a r

f u lT - tla o w ith o u t tt r u r a
o th o r

S.

( I f to n u ra d l in u n it y ear ware you auardad tanuro? ________________________________________________________________

?.

u n it 1s your ago?

'■0.

Sea:

!l.

nh at i i

your e th n ic o rig in ?

’2.

u n it I i

your n e r i t e l s t a t u i ?

□

□

fem ale

□

mate

ji n g le (never m arried I

□

C aucailan

□
□

Q S lack /A fro .A aerican

m arried lo n ly onco)

ti n g le lo lv o rced )

’ 3.

How many dependent c h itd re n do you hava?

'I .

J h e t academic degree! do you to ld ?
Oeoroo
Major F ie ld

^

□

□

□ o th e r

m arried ( r a i a r r lo a )

le o a ra te o

^

In itltu d o n

(S.

*o m a t u r o fe is lo n a l j r g a n u a t l o n i do you oolong?

'S .

3y w m t lm t1 tu t1 o n e th e r then your o r e ie n t one nave you oeen employed?
them *n o r d e r '
I n e d t u tlp n

~

wleowad

P ita Racalvad

[p le a ie Oegm w ith tn e m olt re c e n t and H i t
Y e m Ew loved

loem enti:
Thank you.

272

P a rt I I . —H h h respond to a l l l U M f i t i by p la c in g an ' a ' in Hi* sp a c e p ro v id e d .n s :n :o n e t c l o s e s t t a e x p re s s in g
your vT sw oalnt. Mart jraur ro a n o n ta to co rre sp o n d to th a t a i l o r i n g ly W o ls : SA - s tr o n g ly a g r e e . A • a g r e e .
0 • d is a g r e e , SO - s tr o n g ly d is a g r e e .
SA
A
0
17, to p lo yn en t o p p o r tu n i tie s a r o e q u a l t a r non and oaoon In h lg n o r e d u c a tio n a t
y o u r 1 n lt l t u t l o n .
_ _ _____ ____
'I .

Paw f a c u l t y noaan a o a t th a p r a a a r a ti o n r s q u lr s a n n ts f o r p r o n o tio n to u p p er r a n k s ._____________ ____

_____ ____

19.

aonen and H I d e s e rv e eq u a l pay f o r aq u al work In h ig h e r a d u c a tlo n .____________________________ ____

____

____

20.

f a c u l t y m o o a r a a o r a d e d ic a te d t a te a c h in g th a n f a c u l ty o o n .__________________________________ ____

____

_____

21

E oploylng a g e n ts fa v o r a a l o y f n i wnesn b a t t o r q u a l i f i e d th a n n a n , a t a o d a n o f
th a f a c u l t y . _________________________________________________________________________________________ ____

_____ ____

22.

Paw f a c u l ty wonen s t a y 1n t h a l r p o s iti o n s lo n g enough t o e a rn p r a a o t lo n t t a u o o ar r a n t s .

13.

ta n lo y ln g a g e n ts te n d t a th ln h a u t o e n t l e a l l y I n t a n a o f non when f i l l i n g a nett
p o s iti o n on th a f a c u l t y .

24.

f a c u l t y wooan a r a n o t a t c o o p e tlt I v e In s o o tin g a d ra n t r a a n t t a s f a c u l ty o a n .

■5

f a c u l ty women h a w l a s t o f a p r o f e s s io n a l co a o ritn sn t th a n do f a c u l ty n a n .

26,

f a c u l t y m a m who w ith t o d ev e lo p t h e i r p o te n tia l h av e a d e q u a te o p p o r tu n ity t o do t o .

____

____

27.

T here m o u ld b e a o a r l t s y tta a i o f a p p o ta ta e n t and p r o a o tlo n in h ig h e r e d u c a tio n ,
re g a rd le ss o f ta * .

_

_ _ ______

;9

In g e n e ra l, a d v a n c a m n t f o r wonen In h ig h e r e d u c a tio n i s a slow p r o c a l l .

29.

f a c u l t y woaen do n o t a i t i m

1C

F a c u lty wonen a r e ta k en l e t s s e r io u s ly th a n f a c u l ty non whan t e n t o u t t o r e p r e s e n t
th e 1 ntt1 t u t l o n .

___

11.

H igher e d u c a tio n I n s t i t u t i o n sh o u ld have a g r e a t e r p r o p o r tio n o f nan th a n woawn
on t h a l r f a c u l t i e s .

____

____

____

32

Tha tu r n o v e r r a t a o f f a c u l ty m e a n I t h ig h e r th a n t h a t o f f a c u l ty n a n ,

____

____

____

11.

f a c u l t y wonen a c c e p t s u b o rd in a tio n a o r e r e a d i ly th a n do f a c u l ty n a n .

за.

Few f a c u l ty wonen p roduce th a re s e a r c h re q u ir e d f o r p ro a n tlo n to up p er r a n k s .

____

____

____

15.

F a c u lty wonen a r a l e s t n o b il e g e o g r a p h ic a lly th a n f a c u l t y n a n .
____

____

____

r e t p o n t1 b i1 l ty in dec1t1on>*uk1ng a t r a p i d ly a t f a c u l t y n o n .

_________

_ _
_ _ __ _

____

____

_____
.._

____________

____

_ _
_____ _____ ____
___

_

_ _

зб .

The e a o lo r a tl o n o f th a p o te n tia l o f wonen in h ig h e r e d u c a tio n h a t boon n e g le c te d .

17

F a c u lty wonen a r e o f te n b y p a tte d f o r p ro n o tio n .

____

____

____

33.

F a c u lty e o tn n do w ant f u l l e q u a l i t y , even I f i t d o es naan eq u al r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

_____ ____

____

____

29.

F ic u l ty wonen a r e re g a rd e d fa v o ra b ly by t h a l r e a l l e a c u a t .

SO. Few f a c u l ty wonen a r a s u f f i c i e n t l y i n t i m s te d to p u t f o r th th e e f f o r t to e a rn
advancanent to upper ra n k s .
41.

F ic u l ty wonen a r e o o re r e s p o n s iv e to s tu d e n ts th a n f a c u l ty * e n .

42.

F a c u lty wonen p u b lis h le s s th a n f a c u l ty e o n .

___

43 .

f a c u l ty wonen sh o u ld le a r n to bro ad en t h e i r c a r e e r I n t e r e s t s n o r e p e r s i s t e n t l y th a n
th e y have to d a t e .

44.

F a c u lty wonen a r e more f e a r f u l than f a c u l ty non o f c o n f l i c t t h a t e i g h t en d an g er
t h e i r p r o f e s s io n a l s t a t u s . ______________________________________________________________________________

____

_ _ _ _ _____
____

____

45.

P a r t- t 1 n e f a c u l ty m a n o r s do n o t g iv e s u f f i c i e n t th o u g h t and tim e to t h e i r p r o f e s s io n .

_ _ _ _____

____

4S.

F a c u lty wonen have h ig h e r r a t e s o f s ic k le a v e th a n f a c u l t y n a n .

____

____

____

47,

f a c u l t y wonen a r e le s s r e ip o n s lv a to t h e i r c o lle a g u e s th a n f a c u l t y n o n .

____

____

____

*4 ,

C u ltu r a l a t t i t u d e s o f non c o lle a g u e s and o f tt u d a n ts p r e v e n t a wonen 1n h ig h e r
e d u c a tio n f r a n b e in g an e f f e c t i v e te a c n a r .

__________

____

273

ai r t l I I . - F l m b l o J o in P i c t s r n s .

P l e i i e reio o n o to ( I I m n w i t i by p la c in g i n

'C

>n t u t 1M c e p ro v id e d .

»
41.

*

A l t e r n a t i v e w r k p a t te r n s su ch 4* Jo b s h a r in g . f 1 i « - t 1 m t t a p e r t - d t a th o u ld bo
e s t a b l i s h e d ( t till* I n s t i t u t i o n . ___________________________________________________________________ ____

D

SO

____

____

50.

F o r ( H a l t e d b b r I M , p r o f e s s io n a l p e rso n s u t a t a n heavy f t a i l y r e s p o n s lb l 1 1 t1 e t
m o u ld t a n t t a o p p o rtu n ity to s u m t red u ce d l a t a t a m r s r l l y , ( t a t o r e t u r n t a
f u l l - r l t a i t a t u i often t t a i r s c h e d u le * p e n u lt._____________________________________________________ ____

____

____

___

51.

P r o v is io n sh o u ld ba a t a a . an ( 11 art t t a t a i l , f o r b o n «ho w ith to te e c ft r e g u l a r ly
on a p a r t * t i n e t a d t to o r J o y a n y o f t t a r a n r t a ( t a b e n e f i t s u ftlcn ( c e m a t a
r e g u l a r f i c u l t y ( t l t u i . _____________________________________________________________________________ ____

____

____

___

12.

R e g u la r p o r t-11no f a c u l ty th o u ld M n l l l i n i t a undergo t t a i w c r i t i c a l p r a f t t d o n d
i n t u i t i o n a c co rd ed t t a i r f u l l - t l a e c o l l a d u a t , ( M th o u ld t a p re p a re d to c a n tr lb u t a
t i n o t a w t r v in tu c h ( r * ( ( ( i c o u n to l 1ng» n a r b l n i a n f i c u l t y c m r l t t n o t . i t a
• i n c l i n i n g o f o ffle o n o u n .

_ _

53.

A t p o d i l b u t l l o l to d c t to o o r y o f p o r t - t 1 m f i c u l t y th o u ld bo c m t t a , u t a i f t o r
t t a a s p i r a t i o n o f i i t l p u l o t t a 0r o ta t1 o ta r y p o r la d . th o u ld bo e l i g i b l e f a r t t a f u l l
r i n g s o f f i c u l t y b o n o f l t i . tu c h u :
l o o n . 0r o t a t i o n , s u p p o r t f o r t c h o l m h l p i ,
to n u r o , o p p o r tu n ity to o o r d c l p i t o in d o c l d a n - o o k l n i , v o tin g p r i v i l e g e s 4 t f a c u l ty
m e t l n g s , r o t l n o o n t i t a o th e r f r i n g e b a n o f l t t .

____

14 .

P o p u la r f i c u l t y n t a t a n th o u ld bo o l l f l b l o to m m i roducod to o th in g lo a d f o r
I i p o c l f l c d p e rio d In o rd o r t a a c c o n ta d a ta f o u ll y r o i p o n i l b l l 1t i o l i t a to h a n t t a
p r o o it lo n a r y p o rlo d n t o t a o d ic c o r d ln g l y .

95.

In t o n I n s ta n c e s , r o j u l a r , b u t l o t t th a n f u l l t i n , f a c u l t y t a t a t r i th o u ld bo
o H g ib lo to e n jo y p r a f n d o n o l t l t l o t In a c c o rd in c o o l t h t t a i r i b l l l t l o t i t t t o c h o n
•n o t c h o l i r t , and th o u ld hava th a b o n a f l t o f o q u lta b lo l t a n d i r d t f o r n o t i f i c a t i o n ,
pay i c i l o t . f r in g e b e n e f i t s , and a p o o rtu fi1 t1 e i f a r c a m m l t y l o r v l c o .

_ _ ____

____

___

_ _

_

_

P irt

IV. — P l e n a resp o n d to i l l t t a t n o n t i by p l i c l n g i n “ »* In t t a i p i c e p ro v id e d .

S t.

F ic u l ty u o n n i r o d l s c r l a l n i t s d i g d n t t b o c iu to o f t t a i r p o l i t i c a l v i m
th e io n n ‘ t n v m n t .

57.

F ic u l ty im e n fo o l t i n e i t 1s n o t i n o r t i n t to n p n i i t l t d r v is e s ib o u t th e
• o w n 's n v m n t " t a r n they u o r h .

58.

i t 1 t ( o r n o u ld bo) i p p r a p m t o f o r • f i c u l t y t a m n t o hood ey d a p a rtn n t . _________________________

53.

F a c u lty u o n n fo o l t h a t c o - n o r k i r s n k a t t a n fo o l i n i n p o r t a n t p a r t o f t t a d o p ir t n i i t . _______ ____

£u.

D e c isio n -n a ilin g 11i n I n p o r ta n t p a r t o f th e u o rk o f f i c u l t y uo n n .

__

ib a u t
.

____

_____ ___

____

____

____

___

____

___

____

61.

I t i t in p o r t a n t to f i c u l t y o a n n to ba i b l e to nako d a e l d o n i ib a u t t t a i r a c r k .

52.

T i d n g e v e ry th in g in t o m o u n t , f i c u l t y uon n i r e s a t i s f i e d e l t h t t a i r J o b i. __________________ ____

____

____

___

___

_—

_____ ____

___

____

_____ ___

_ _ _____

_____ ___

6J.

I t i t I n o r t i n t f o r f i c u l t y u o n n to b a i l t l s f l o d u l t h t h e i r jo b s .

64.

F ic u l ty u o n n do n o t fo o l d l s c r l n l n i t t a i g d n i t 1n t h e i r Jab b o c i u ie o f s e s .

65.

S es d 1s c r 1n l n a t i o n in m l o y m n t s n c t l e a s I s i n i n p o r t a n t I s s u o f o r f i c u l t y i i m n .

_ _

__

66 .

F ic u l ty M iiin o f te n nor* n o re th a n t t a n o m a l t c t a d u l t a h o u r s .

_ _

__

67 .

F u u l t y u o a in have o a u d p i r t 1 e lM t1 o n in do p a r t n e r t i l in d p r o f o i d a n a l i c t i v l t l o i
In *y o a p i r t a s n t .

_ _ _____

66 .

F ic u l ty " O ta r lo rv o m u a l l y on in p o r t a n t c a m r lt ts e s In « y d ip a r m a f lt .

____

69.

F ic u l ty HOtan l i r v i n o ro on l o t i p r e s t i g i o u s c o o n rltto o s t h i n f a c u l t y non In my
d o o irm n t.

70.

F ic u l ty " O ta r i r e tn c o u rig a d to to o k o f f i c i i in p r o f e s s io n a l o r g a n i z a ti o n s .

__

_____ ___

.

_

.

...

_

_ _ _____ ______ _____

S l l i r v . T enure in d P rp o o tlo n o f F ic u l ty UOtan
71 e

F a c u lty

72,

f a c u l t y K u n tia v t aq u a l H k tH h o o d o f ta n u r* a t t a l n w n t .

73.

T t o u r t e v a lu a tio n c r i t e r i a a r t t b t s a w f o r f a c u l t y « a w n and w it in ay d a o a r t w n t .

mrm

Bav# N w l o p p o r tu n ity f o r B r o w tlo n t .

..
— — __

_

274

74.

S a la r ie s a r a th a aaaa far ficulty woman ini " a n w ith in rim.

15.

F acu lty « M H a t t a i n promotion w ith in th a
d e p a r n a n t.

IS .

F acu lty a a n hava aoual o p p o rtu n ity f o r a d d itio n a l a i H j i w u

ttm a p erio d a t f a c u lty w

(auaam r a c h o s l. a t e . J .

17.

F acu lty inman n a v t aqual o a o o rtu n lty f o r p lacam m t o f Jo u rn al a r t i c l e * .

71.

F acu lty women hava o a a a r tu n ltlo a f o r c o n s u ltin g .

71,

F a c u lty woman have o a a a rtu n ltlo a f o r a tu a a n t s u p e rv is io n ( a d v lta a a ) .

____

_____ _____ ____

____

____

____

____

____ ____

___

_____

I n ay

,___

________

___
_____

90.

F acu lty uonan hava aqual ra ia a rc h p o i t l b l l t t l a a .

11.

F acu lty >«aan hava aqual In p u t In to fo r a a l dec1i 1o «-n * k tn g ,

_ _ _ __ _ ____
___
________ ____

52.

F acu lty uoaan hava aqual o a o o rtu n lty f o r a t ta in in g fundinq f o r con faran ca a .

33.

F a c u lty uoaan hava aqual o a o o rtu n lty to tn t a r a c t w ith e o lla a p u a * .

a t.

F acu lty 1w a n p a r t i c i p a t e 1n Inform al d a c lil o n t.

_____
____

____

_____ _

____

____

_______ _ ____

95.

F acu lty uoaan. m r a o fta n th a n a a n , a rc eaked p a tr o n is in g q u a a tlo n i o r e o w a n ta .

U.

F acu lty uoaan, a o ra o fta n than a a n , o fta n ho ar h o a t lla q u a a tlo n i o r c a a m n ts .

___
____

____

____

____

3 ?.

F a tu ity uoaan u a u a lly ta k a o p o o rtu n itla a f o r a o c la lla ln g .

33.

Support f r o a ay O aq artaan t eh a lrp a ra o n h a t fO atarad ay Jok a a tta f a c tl o n In ay d a a a r f a a n f .

_____

_ _

39.

I a t t r l b u t o ny Jon a a tla f a c tl o n . In p a r t , ta th a f a c t th a t I hava ach iev ed ay p ra a a n t
rank In ny d a p a rta a n t u l t h l n a raaao n ab la t l a a p a rlo d .

____

____

>0

1 aa n o t i a tia f 1 a d u ltn ay Job a t p ra a a n t and I a t t r l b u t o th l a Job d i i t a t f i f a c t i o n
( a t la a a t 1n p a r t i to th a f a c t th a t I hava n o t achieved th a a c a d a rtc rank th a t I
fo al I d a ia rv a u lt h ln a m aaonabla t l a a p a rlo d .

____

____ ______ ____

______
____

____

For q u a a tlo n i 91 to 93, p la c a an **" In th a apaca provided u h lch coaaa c l o a a t t to a a o ra a tln g your v la a p o in t. Mark your
reioonaa to corraapond ta th a follow ing ly a n o la : VS • vary a a t i i f l a d , SS - anam ihat s a t i s f i e d , USD - n e i th e r u n i f i e d
nor o 1 a ia t1 a f1 e d , VS - vary ia t1 a f1 a d .
vS
s
MSB
SO
VD
91.

n il (n a l l , how a a t i i f l a d a r a you u l t h your p r a i a n t Job7

92.

Hou u t i t f 1 a d e r a you u l t h th a prog r a n you a r a making to u a rd i th a goat a u hlch
you l o t f o r y o u rs e lf 1n your p r a ia n t p o alt1 o n 1n the d a p a r n a n t? ____________________________

13

_____

a rc you l a t n l f o d w ith your Job in l i g h t o f c a r e e r a a p e c ta tlp n iT

____

____

_ _

____

____

____

____ _ ____

___

____

ca r q u e itlo n t go and 9S , p la ce an “a" by th e 'o llo w in g ayvlxil which comoa c l o a a t t to ac p ra aaln g your view p o in t - E • e i c a l l e n t , S - good, F - f a i r , P • p o o r.
E
1
F

P

34.

I r a t e ny i a t 1a f a c tlo n w ith ny c u r ra n t a a la ry 1n wy d a p a rta a n t.

__________

____

____

35.

( r a t a th a o v e ra ll fa c u lty s a la ry le v e l! a t ny u n lv e r ilt y .

____

____

____

____

' c r q u a a tlo n i 9b to 9 1 , p li c a an ■*■ by th a resp o n se which eonaa c l o a a s t to o ap raasln g y o u r v iew point.
96.

I w ilt naka a ro a t s f f o r t to fin d a p e t iti o n a t an o th er u n iv e r s ity w ith in th e n e s t y e a r.
22 n o t i t a l l H la l y

□ aommwiit li k e ly

Q vary li k e ly

97. If I nad ny cn o lca o f a l l th e Job! in th a w orld [ would chooaa
~
91.

ny p ra a a n t Job

C

a n o th e r Job in th e t i n e o ccu p atio n

I g o t th a moat s a t i s f a c t i o n from

Q n y job

□

Q a jo b

th e th in g s I do

In an o th er o cc u p atio n .
in ny ap ara tl a a

O ” ? fam ily .

In q u e s tio n s 39 and 100 b elou p le a s e ratoond re g a rd in g your a t tit u d e s toward your te a c h in g 1n w r itin g 1n th a spacaa
below.
99.

shan you fo al e s c e o tio n a lly good ab o u t your Job, what a s p e c ts o f th a Job. coma to mind?

5. __________________________________________________________
C.

275

100,

Uwfl you t— 1 «ac*pt1aiii11y bad about your job , u to t tftbtcts o f tt* job u m to
••

-

b.

c*

_

.

________________________

FubH citloni and U m r t h
A fic u lty n u b o r 'i p u b lic a tio n and r t m r t d record i n uaually vary l a r t a t In regard to leou irln g town , prgaatloo.
ind talary Incmoaao. quaatloni 101*101 i n d n 1 « n d to giro In to n a tio n on your publication and m n r t o rocdfd. tn
guw tlona 101-103 g lic o an *»* In too tooeo ubldi c u a a c f o m t to aoproailng your v lo n a ln t.
101.

Oo your In ta r u ta H o p r iw r lly In towM ng ar In m oorcOT Q v o r y h w «1ly In roau r c li
n 1n boto, but l n n ln f tsuord roawrch Q fn both, but to w in g tw ir d t n c h ln i Q n r y w a r ily In taadilng

tOZ.

How nany i r t l c l m bivo you publtiW d In ic a d w tc or p r o fd a ilo u t Journolt tn tbo p u t tnroo y w r a l
□ non
□ 1-3 □ J-l □ J-10Q 11-10 Q oora thin 10

101.

Non u n y M a li or oonoon pU boro you publltbod a r id t tod. i l a n ar In col m e n t i o n , tn tn* l u t throo yaoroT
□ n o n Q 1-1
□ J-* I 11or n r o

In guw tlona 104-100, p lico in
in till ip k o provided ublch c a n c lo u o t to u p r a tlln g your viewpoint. bard your
m p o n u ta corrupond ta tho follow ing ayaboli: SI - itron gly a m . 4 • a n , 0 - d lM f r u , SO • i t m g l y d lia g r w .
104.

SA

Hhan t m i tooling fo r my f l n t Job, a facu lty m a r ipomorad n ind adndd I I
my u n to r .__________________________________________________________________________________ ____

*

0

SO

____ ____

103 .

tn ny d o p irtn n t 1t la vary d if f ic u lt fo r i panon ta icblaua tanuro 1f ha or Wo
lo o t not publlih.___________________________________________________________________________ ____ ____ ____ ____

1Ofi.

in my d o p a m w t i t I i vary d if f ic u lt for i panon ta rucelva a lg n lflc in t u l i r y
I f ha or m o dow not publltn.

107.

f l u i d l i l t i t l u i t throo (31 ie t1 » 1 M n In uhlch you w pportod or f a it c c n a llo d not to aupport ca n o r
opportunltloi for fic u lty u o n n . (For o m p la , r o t r u lm n t , hirin g, p r o n tlo n , tanuro, fringe b a n o fltt,
n a ta m lty l u r e , e t c .)

_

1.

2.

3.

f l u i d id d open onddd c o n o n tt n o t cnorod 1n o p ln lo n n o lro :

Think you!

APPENDIX E
LIST OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

276

"What should be studied in relation to improving the
status of women faculty members?"

"Are there equal opportunities for employment and
advancement of women faculty in your department?"

"On what basis are faculty members in your depart­
ment rewarded and advanced? Is it the same or dif­
ferent in other departments of your college? Are
there any sex differences in promotional policies?"

"Are potential abilities of faculty women fully
utilized in your department?"

APPENDIX F
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES

278

CATEGORY 1.— Data Related to the Employment of Faculty Women (Percent of Responses),
Female Respondents
Item
Number

strongly
Agree

^

Male Respondents

Disagree
^

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

A9ree

nisaaree
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

7.3

19.5

51.2

22.0

15.1

45.3

32.6

7.0

21

2.9

26.5

58.8

11.8

7.2

40.5

34.8

17.4

23

4.8

42.9

45.2

7.1

3.6

16.9

63.9

15.7

31

4.8

2.4

50.0

42.9

3.5

21.2

49.4

25.9

104

26.8

17.1

31.7

24.4

19.8

23.3

31.4

25.6

279

17

CATEGORY 2.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Promotion (Percent of
Responses).
Male Respondents

Female Respondents
Item
Number

Strongly
Disagree

Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

18

—

12.5

35.0

52.5

8.2

11.8

60.0

20.0

22

—

5.1

46.2

48.7

3.6

16.9

63.9

15.7

27

61.0

29.3

9.8

—

57.6

37.6

2.4

2.4

37

35.9

43.6

20.5

—

3.6

21.7

55.4

19.3

71

2.6

42.1

52.6

2.6

33.3

45.2

16.7

4.8

75

7.9

39.5

50.0

2.6

27.5

66.2

6.3

Disagree

Strongly
Agree

—

280

Strongly
Agree

CATEGORY 3.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Equal Pay (Percent of
Responses).

Item
Number

Female Respondents
----------------------------------Strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree
y
y
Disagree

Male Respondents
-------------------------Strongly
Disagree Strongly
Agree
y
y
Disagree

92.9

2.4

2.4

2.4

78.2

18.4

—

3.4

74

5.3

42.1

44.7

7.9

25.6

53.8

17.9

2.6

106

23.7

57.9

13.2

5.3

23.9

50.0

20.5

5.7

281

19

CATEGORY 4.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Tenure (Percent of
Responses).

Item
Number

Female Respondents
----------------------------------Strongly Agree Disagree S i n g l y

Male Respondents
----------------------------------Strongly ftgree Disagree S i n g l y

5.3

42.1

50.0

2.6

30.9

45.7

18.5

4.9

73

8.3

72.2

13.9

5.6

39.5

53.5

4.7

2.3

105

23.7

52.6

21.1

2.6

33.0

30.7

29.5

6.8

282

72

CATEGORY 5.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Career Development
(Percent of Responses).
Female Respondents
Item
Number

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disaaree
Disagree

Male Respondents
s tx on qly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disaoree
Disagree

str<>n9ly
Disagree

34.1

61.0

4.9

7.1

50.6

32.9

9.4

40

2.4

35.7

61.9

5.9

9.4

51.8

32.9

58

64.3

35.7

49.4

43.5

4.7

2.4

76

21.1

63.2

38.9

50.7

2.4

13.2

2.6

283

28

CATEGORY 7,— Data Related to Personality Characteristics of Faculty Women
(Percent of Responses).
Female Respondents
Number

Strongly
Agree

Agree Disagree

Male Respondents
Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

28.6

11.9

3.6

14.3

57.1

25.0

2.4

43.9

53.7

1.2

8.3

58.3

32.1

4.8

18.1

56.6

18.1

7.2

18.1

56.6

18.1

33

2.4

61.9

28.6

7.1

2.4

25.3

49.4

22.9

38

59.5

35.7

2.4

2.4

36.5

49.4

11.8

2.4

43

13.9

52.8

30.6

2.8

6.5

24.7

55.8

13.0

44

—

54.8

40.5

4.8

8.8

23.8

53.7

13.7

60

22.0

58.5

19.5

—

17.1

69.5

12.2

1.2

61

54.8

45.2

—

—

32.1

63.1

3.6

1.2

81

12.8

46.2

35.9

5.1

31.0

59.5

9.5

—

84

10.0

67.5

17.5

5.0

29.3

54.6

6.1

——

2.4

25

—

29

284

57.1

24

CATEGORY 8.— Data Related to Job Mobility of Faculty Women (Percent of Responses).

Item

2.6

18.4

63.2

15.8

7.5

26.2

60.0

6.3

35

9.8

53.7

31.7

4.9

7.4

39.5

42.0

11.1

285

32

CATEGORY 9.— Data Related to Teaching Effectiveness of Faculty Women {Percent of
Responses).
Female Respondents
Item
Number

Male Respondents
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

1.1

5.7

60.9

32.2

—

3.6

7.1

59.5

29.8

36.6

4.7

4.7

57.6

32.0

34.6

62.8

2.6

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

20

12.5

17.5

55.0

15.0

41

12.5

27.5

60.0

48

2.4

14.6

46.3

79

25.7

71.4

2.9

Strongly
Agree

286

Agree

Strongly
Agree

CATEGORY 10.— Data Related to Research and Other Scholarly Writing of Faculty Women
(Percent of Responses).
Female Respondents
Item
Number

Strongly
Agree

Male Respondents

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree
10.3

42

—

28.2

56.4

15.4

5.1

20.5

64.1

77

10.8

62.2

24.3

2.7

34.6

50.5

4.5

—

80

13.2

55.8

21.1

—

31.3

53.9

4.8

—

287

Agree

CATEGORY 11.— Data Related to Contributions to Profession of Faculty Women
(Percent of Responses).
Female Respondents
Number

Male Respondents

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

66

43.6

43.6

12.8

—

67

20.0

45.0

32.5

68

22.5

57.5

69

5.1

70
82

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

5.3

50.0

31.6

13.2

2.5

39.5

52.3

4.7

3.5

17.5

2.5

38.8

49.4

8.2

3.5

25.6

53.8

15.4

1.2

5.9

61.2

31.8

11.9

54.8

21.4

11.9

25.0

61.2

10.0

3.7

11.8

70.6

14.7

2.9

33.7

62.7

3.6

288

Strongly
Agree

CATEGORY 12.— Data Related to Acceptance by Associates of Faculty Women (Percent of
Responses).
Female Respondents
Item
Number

Agree

Disagree

30

17.5

52.5

27.5

39

7.3

46.3

47

—

59

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

2.5

3.7

31.3

46.2

18.8

43.9

2.4

17.1

64.6

18.3

—

2.4

45.2

52.4

7.2

69.9

22.9

5.6

50.0

44.4

—

12.3

69.9

15.1

2.7

83

10.0

60.0

20.0

10.0

32.1

64.3

3.6

85

30.0

50.0

15.0

5.0

7.5

33.7

48.7

10.0

86

21.6

37.8

37.8

2.7

6.3

26.2

57.5

10.0

87

2.9

57.6

29.4

—

3.9

71.4

19.5

5.2

—

—

289

Strongly
Agree

Male Respondents

CATEGORY 13.— Data Related to Use of Full Potential of Faculty Women (Percent of
Responses).
Female Respondents
Item
Number

Strongly
Agree

Male Respondents

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

14.3

24.1

52.9

19.5

3.4

—

5.9

55.3

29.4

9.4

26

4.8

19.0

61.9

36

43.2

48.6

8.1

56

10.0

30.0

57.5

2.5

—

10.7

48.8

49.5

34.1

58.5

7.3

—

17.9

56.4

25.6

57

—

64

2.4

7.1

76.2

14.3

3.9

29.9

60.0

5.2

65

43.9

46.3

7.3

2.4

25.3

57.8

14.5

2.4

290

Agree

CATEGORY 14.— Data Related to Job Satisfaction of Faculty Women (Percent of
Responses).
Female Respondents
Item
Number

Male Respondents

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

62

5.1

20.5

56.7

7.7

7.7

59.2

31.0

5.6

63

70.0

30.0

—

44.6

53.0

2.4

—

88

30.0

50.0

12.5

7.5

27.2

63.0

7.4

2.5

89

10.8

40.5

43.3

5.4

59.5

59.5

21.5

3.8

291

—

Strongly
Disagree

CATEGORY 15.— Data Related to Alternative Work Patterns of Faculty Women (Percent
of Responses).
Female Respondents
Item
Number

Agree

Disagree

49

39.0

39.0

17.1

50

45.2

9.5

51

35.7

50.0

14.3

52

42.9

45.2

53

31.7

54
55

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Disagree

4.9

28.6

40.5

23.8

7.1

4.7

19.5

54.0

21.8

4.6

—

19.0

53.6

21.4

6.0

9.5

2.4

33.3

50.0

12.5

4.5

43.9

19.5

4.9

15.3

47.1

29.4

8.2

41.0

52.5

2.6

—

17.6

57.6

20.0

4.7

41.0

56.4

2.6

——

19.0

56.0

17.9

7.1

—

292

Strongly
Agree

Male Respondents

APPENDIX G
SAMPLE MEANS:

CELL, MARGINAL, AND

GRAND MEANS FOR CATEGORIES 1-15

293

CATEGORY 1.— Data Related to Employment of Faculty Women.
College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

18.287

21.289

18.716

Men

17.179

17.107

17.141

Marginal
Mean

17.704

17.590

294

University College

Sex

CATEGORY 2.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Promotion.
Sex

University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

1.920

1.543

1.866

Men

1.784

1.896

1.845

Marginal
Mean

1.849

1.874

295

Women

CATEGORY 3.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Pay.
Sex

University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

1.588

3.000

1.790

Men

1.663

3.980

2.926

Marginal
Mean

1.620

3.870

296

Women

CATEGORY 4.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Tenure.
Sex

University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

2.185

2.000

2.158

Mean

2.159

2.097

2.136

Marginal
Mean

2.159

2.097

297

Women

CATEGORY 5.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Career Development.
Sex

University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

2.056

2.667

2.143

Mean

2.850

3.085

2.977

Marginal
Mean

2.474

3.038

298

Women

CATEGORY 6.— Data Related to Advancement of Faculty Women— Summary.
Sex

University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

1.912

1.960

1.918

Hen

1.896

2.317

2.123

Marginal
Mean

1.903

2.276

299

Women

CATEGORY 7.— Data Related to Personality Characteristics.
Sex

College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

2.35

2.27

2.35

Men

2.39

2.55

2.48

Marginal
Mean

2.36

2.52

300

University College

CATEGORY 8.— Data Related to Job Mobility.
University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

2.08

1.46

2.64

Men

1.79

1.69

1.73

Marginal
Mean

1.92

1.66

Sex

CATEGORY 9.— Data Related to Teaching Effectiveness of Faculty Women.
College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

2.57

2.50

2.56

Men

2.34

2.36

2.35

Marginal
Mean

2.45

2.37

302

University College

Sex

CATEGORY 10.— Data Related to Research and Other Scholarly Writing of Faculty
Women.
Sex

College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

2.35

2.39

2.36

Men

2.43

2.47

2.47

Marginal
Mean

2.39

2.46

303

University College

CATEGORY 11.— Data Related to Contributions to Profession of Faculty Women.
College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

2.09

1.74

2.14

Men

1.97

1.90

1.93

Marginal
Mean

2.03

1.88

304

University College

Sex

CATEGORY 12.— Data Related to Acceptance by Associates of Faculty Women.
Sex
Women

University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

2.36

2.48

2.38

UJ
Q
U1

Men

2.38

2.51

Marginal
Mean

2.37

2.50

2.45

CATEGORY 13.— Data Related to Use of Full Potential of Faculty Women.
College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

2.55

2.50

2.54

Men

2.54

2.42

2.47

Marginal
Mean

2.54

2.43

306

University College

Sex

CATEGORY 14.— Data Related to Job Satisfaction of Faculty Women.
University College

College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

1.63

1.75

1.66

Mean

2.09

2.18

2.14

Marginal
Mean

1.87

2.13

Sex

307

CATEGORY 15.— Data Related to Alternative Work Patterns.
College of Business

Marginal Mean

Women

2.90

3.10

2.94

Men

2.86

2.93

2.90

Marginal
Mean

2.88

2.95

308

University College

Sex

BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramson, Joan.
"Measuring Success, or Whatever
Happened to Affirmative Action?"
Civil Rights
Digest, Winter 1977.
Affirmative Action at Michigan State University 1977-78.
Annual Report to the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare.
Almquist, Elizabeth M . , and Angrist, Shirley S.
"Role
Model Influences on College Women's Aspirations.'
In Athena Theodore, The Professional Woman.
Cambridge,
Mass:
Schenicman, 1^71.
Anderson, Charles, ed. A Fact Book on Higher Education:
Demographic and Economic Data.
First Issue7
1976. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1976.
Apter, Julie T.
"Increasing the Professional Visibility
of Women in Academia:
A Case Study." Women in
Higher Education: American Council on Educa­
tion. Edited by W. Todd Furniss and Patricia
Alberg Graham, 1974.
Astin, Helen S.
"Where Are All the Talented Women?"
In
W. Todd Furniss and Patricia Alberg Graham,
Women in Higher Education. Washington, D . C . :
American Council on Education, 1974.
________ . The Woman Doctorate in America:
Origins,
Career and Family. New York:
Russell Sage
Foundation, 1969.
________ , and Bayer, Alan E.
"Sex Discrimination in
Academe."
Educational Record 53 (Spring 1972):
101-118.
, and Hirsch, Werner Z., eds.
The Higher
Education of Women:
Essays in Honor of
Rosemary! New York:
Praeger, 1978.
Babbie, Earl R.
Survey Research Methods. Calif.
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973.
310

311
Baker, Liva.I*m Radcliffei Fly Mel
The Seven Sisters
and the Failure of Women’s Education. New York:
McMillan, 1976.
Bayer,

Alan, and Astin, Helen S. "Sex Differences
Academic Rank and Salary Among Science
Doctorates in Teaching." Journal of Human
Resources 3 (Spring 1968):191-20(5"^

in

Bazell, Robert J.
"Sex Discrimination: Campuses Face
Contract Loss Over HEW Demands."
Science 170,
No. 3960 (1970) *.834-835.
Belok,

M. V.
"A Forgotten Minority." Journal of
Thought 4 (November 1969):273-277.

Benoit, Sallye Starks. "Job Satisfaction Among Faculty
Women in Higher Education in the State Univer­
sities of Louisiana." Ph.D. dissertation,
Louisiana State University, 1976.
Bernard, Jessie. Academic Women. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964.
Berry, Jane, and Kushner, Richard.
"A Critical Look at
the Queen Bee Syndrome." Journal of NAWDAC
(Summer 1975):173-176.
Berwald, Helen D.
"Attitudes Toward Women College
Teachers in Institutions of Higher Education
Accredited by the North Central Association."
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota,
1962.
Bickner, Mei Liang. Women at Work: An Annotated
Bibliography. Irvine, Calif.: University of
California Press, 1974.
, and Shaughnessy, Marlene. Women at Work: An
Annotated Bibliography. Vol. II. Los Angeles,
Calif.: University of California, Institute of
Industrial Relations, 1976.
Bradley, Judy, and Silverleaf, Jane.
"Women Teachers in
Further Education." Educational Research 22
(November 1979).
Bryson, Rebecca; Bryson, Jeff B.; and Johnson, Marilyn F.
"Family Size, Satisfaction, and Productivity in
Dual-Career Couples." Psychology of Women
Quarterly 3 (Fall 1978):67-77.

312
Bruskamp, Larry A.; Muffo, John A.; and Langston, Ira W.
III.
"Determining Salary Equity Policies,
Procedures, and Problems." Journal of Higher
Education 49 (1978).
Browder, Lesley H.
"Where are Schools of Education
Going?"
Journal of Teacher Education XXIX
(July-August 1976):52-56.
Butts, Freeman R.
"Search for Freedom:
The Story of
American Education."
In Stan Dropkin et al..
Contemporary American Education: An Anthology
of Issues, Problems, challenges. Toronto:
MacMillan, 1969.
Call, Annie Payson.
"The Greatest Need of College
Girls." Atlantic Monthly, January 1892,
pp. 102-109.
Carey, Henry R.
"Career or Maternity."
Review (December 1929):737-44.

North American

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
Opportunities
for Women in Higher Education:
Their Current
Participation, Prospects for the Future, and
Recommendations for Action! New York: McGrawHill Book Company, 1973.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
The More
Effective Use of Resources:
An Imperative for
Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1975b.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
Less Time,
More Options:
Education Beyond the~High School.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, l970d.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
Opportunities
for Women in Higher Education. New Y o r k :
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
Carroll, Mary Ann.
"Women in Administration in Higher
Education."
Contemporary Education 43
(February 1972):214-218.
Cartter, Alan M . , and Solmon, Lewis C.
"Implications
for Faculty."
Change 8 (September 1976):38.
Centra, John.
N.J.:

Women. Men and the Doctorate.
Princeton,
Educational Testing Service, 1974.

313
"Women with Doctorates."
1975, pp. 49, 61.

Change, February

Chalmers, E. L. "Achieving Equity for Women in Higher
Education: Graduate Enrollment and Faculty
Status." Journal of Higher Education XL1I
(October 1972):517-524.
Churgin, John R. The New Woman and the Old Academe:
Sexism and Higher Education. New York: Libra,
1978.
Cook, Alice H.
"Sex Discrimination at Universities:
Ombudsman's View." AAUP Bulletin, vol. 58,
p. 281.

An

Cohen, Audrey C. "Women and Higher Education: Recom­
mendations for Change." Phi Delta Kappan 53
(November 1971):164-167.
Cohen, Arthur M. Work Satisfaction Among Junior College
Faculty Members. U.S. Educational Resources
Information Center, ERIC Document ED 081 426,
November 1973.
"Columbia Agrees to Anti-Bias Hiring Review."
Chronicle of Higher Education 6 (March 27, 1972):
3.
Community and Junior College Journal (December/January
1976) .
Coser, Rose L., and Rokoff, Gerald.
"Women in the
Occupational World: Social Disruptions and
Conflict." Social Problems 18 (Spring 1971):
535-554.
Criar, Roger Douglas.
"Expressed Attitudes of Faculty
Men and Women Toward Faculty Women in Higher
Education in New Hampshire." Ph.D. disserta­
tion, The University of Mississippi, 1978.
Cunningham, Robert M . , Jr. "Women Who Made it Offer
Insights into Their Problems." College and
University Business 48 (February 1970):56-61.
Davis, Ann E. "Women as a Minority Group in Higher
Academics." American Sociologist 4 (May 1969):
95-98.

314
Demos, John. "The Structure of the Household." In Gary
B. Nash, ed., The Private Side of American
History. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
1979.
Dinerman, Beatrice.
"Sex Discrimination in Academia."
Journal of Higher Education 42 (April 1971):
253-264.
Dolan, Eleanor, and Davis, Margaret P. "Anti-Nepotism
Rules in Colleges and Universities: Their
Effect on the Faculty of Women." Educational
Record 41 (October 1969):285-291.
Donald, Marjorie N. "Implications of Non-Response for
the Interpretation of Mail Questionnaire Data."
Public Opinion Quarterly 24 (1960).
Donelson, Elaine, and Gullahorn, Jeannie E. Women: A
Psychological Perspective. John Wiley and Sons,
1977.
Drepenbrock, Elaine C.; Holfert, Karen; and Vandergruff,
Judith C. Montgomery County Community College
Survey Conducted by Montgomery County Commission
for WornirT U.S. Educational Resources Informa­
tion Center, ERIC Document ED 152 342, 1976.
Ducey, Walter J. "Equal Employment Opportunity Comes to
the Campus." The Journal of the College and
University Personnel Association (1979):1-13.
Eble, Kenneth. "A 3-Point Program for Strengthening the
Position of Women Faculty Members." Chronicle
of Higher Education 6 (May 1, 1972):5.
Eckert, R. E., Jr.; Stecklein, E.; and Sagen, H. B.
"College Faculty Members View Their Jobs."
AAUP Bulletin 45 (1959):513-528.
________ , and Stecklein, John E. "Academic Women."
Athena Theodore, The Professional Woman:
Trends and Prospects. Cambridge: Schenkman
Publishing Company, 1971.

In

Eells, Walter C. "Earned Doctorates for Women in the
Nineteenth Century." Bulletin of the American
Association of University Professors XLII
(Winter 1956):641-651.

315
Een, Jo Ann Delores, and Rosenberg-Dishman, Marie B.,
eds. and compilers.
Women and Society—
Citations 3601 to 6000: An Annotated
Bibliography. Calif.: Sage Publications, 1978.
El-Khawas, Elaine H . , and Furniss, W.
Tenure and Contract Systems:
American Council on Education
in "Fact File."
Chronicle of
February 18, 1976.

Todd.
"Faculty
1972 and 1974."
Survey, reported
Higher Education,

Elliott, Charles W.
"Woman's Work and W o m a n ’s Wages."
North American Review, August 1882, pp. 146-61.
Feldman, Saul D.
Escape From the D o l l 1s House;
in Graduate and Professional Education"
York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

Women
New

Fidell, L. S,
"Empirical Verification of Sex Discrimina­
tion in Hiring Practices in Psychology."
American Psychologist 25 (1970):1094-1098.
Fields, Cheryl M.
"Government Conditionally Orders
College to Award Tenure."
The Chronicle of
Higher Education XX (March 3"» 1980)^9.
________ . "Congress Gives Women New Weapon in Effort to
End Sex Bias.” Chronicle of Higher Education 6:
(March 27, 1972):2.
________ . "Federal Probes into Sex Discrimination
Provoke Controversy on Campus." Chronicle of
Higher Education 5 (March 22, 1971):1-2.
________ . "U.S. Rule May Hit Unequal Men-Women Pension
Benefits."
Chronicle of Higher Education 6
(April 24, 1972):2.
Frazier, Nancy, and Sadker, Myra.
Sexism in School and
Society. New York:
Harper and Row, 1973.
Freeman, Jo.
"Revolution is Happening in Our Minds."
College and University Business 48 (February
197(J) :63-fd.----- --------- Friedman, Barbara et al., eds.
Women's Work and
Women's Studies/1973-1974:
A Bibliography.
New York:
The Feminist Press, 1975.

316
Furniss, W. Todd, and Graham, Patricia Alberg. Women in
Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1974.
Garson, Helen S. "Hurry Up Please, It's Time."
of NAWDAC, Summer 1975, pp. 180-181.

Journal

Gildersleeve, Virginia C. et al. "The Question of the
Women's Colleges." Atlantic Monthly, November
1927, pp. 577-585.
Gold, Sonia.
"Work and Leisure Models: Some Implica­
tions for Women's Higher Education.” Unpublished
paper, January 1968.
Goodsell, Willystine. Pioneers of Women's Education in
the United States. New York: McGraw, 1931.
Graham, Patricia Alberg.
"Status Transition of Women
Students, Faculty and Administration." In
Alice S. Rossi and Ann Calderwood, eds. New
York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1973.
"Women in Academe."
1970):1284-1290.

Science 169 (September 25,

Gray, Nancy.
"Report of Committee W, 1976-77."
Bulletin 63 (August 1977):443.

AAUP

Greenfield, Ester.
"From Equal to Equivalent Pay:
Salary Discrimination in Academia." Journal of
Law and Education 6 (January 1977):41.
Gruhchow, Nancy.
"Discrimination: Women Charge Univer­
sities, Colleges with Bias." Science 168 (3931):
559-561.
Hamovitch, William, and Morgenstern, Richard D.
"Children are the Productivity of Academic
Women." Journal of Higher Education XLVII
(November/December 1977):633-645.
Harmon, Lindsey R. "Careers of Ph.D.'s Academic Versus
Nonacademic: A Second Report on Follow-up of
Doctorate Cohorts 1935-1960." Washington, D.C:
National Academy of Science, 1968.
Hawkins, Ruth.
"The Odds Against Women."
November/December 1969, p. 34.

Change,

317
Henniz, Margaret, and Jardin, Anne.
The Managerial
Woman. New York: Pocket Books, 1978.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell.
"Inside the Clockwork of
Male Careers."
In Florence Howe/ Women and the
Power to Change. New York: McGraw Hill/ 1975.
Hollander, Harriet E. et al., eds. Women:
Their Future
in the University and the Community. Saratoga
Springs, New York: Skidmore College.
Horner, M. S.
"Toward an Understanding of Achievement
Related Conflicts in Women." Journal of Social
Issues 28, No. 2 (1972).
Hornig, Lilli S.
"Affirmative Action Through Affirma­
tive Attitudes." Women in Academia:
Evolving
Policies Toward Equal Opportunities. New York:
Praeger, 1975,
Howe, Florence.
"The Education of Women."
In Judith
Stacey et al., And Jill Came Tumbling After.
New York:
Dell, 1974.
Husbands, Sandra Archer.
"Women's Place in Higher
Education?" School Review, February 1972,
pp. 267-268.
Hutchinson, Emilie J.
"Women and the Ph.D." Journal of
the American Association of University Women
XXII (October 1928): 19-22”.
Johnson, G. E . , and Stafford, F. P.
"The Earnings and
Promotion of Women Faculty." American Economics
Review 64 (December 1974):588-903.
Kemper, Theodore.
"Reference Groups, Socialization and
Achievement." American Sociological Review 33
(February 1968):31-45.
Kingsbury, Susan M.
"A Study of the Economic Status of
University Women." Journal of the &nerican
Association of University Women T2 (June 1939).
LaSorte, Michael A.
"Academic Women's Salaries:
Pay for Equal Work?" Journal of Higher
Education 42 (April 1971):265-278.

Equal

318
Leppauluato, Jean R.
"Attitude Change and Sex Discrim­
ination:
The Crunch Hypothesis."
Paper
presented before the Western Psychological
Association, 197 2.
Lewin, Arie, and Duncan, Linda.
"Women in Academia:
A
Study of the Hiring Decisions in Departments of
Physical Science."
Science 3 (September 1971):
892-895.
Little, Clarence C.
"Women and Higher Education."
Scribnerfs Magazine, August 1929, pp. 146-50.
Loeb, James W . ; Ferber, Marianne; and Lowry, Helen.
"The Effectiveness of Affirmative Action for
Women."
Journal of Higher Education 49, No. 3
(1978).
Losee, Frances.
"Let the Women Learn With the Men."
Educational Review, March 1928, p. 167.
Lyon, Rhee.
"Married Women and the Academic Tradition."
Journal of Higher Education 35 (May 1964):251255.
Magarrel, Jack.
"Higher Education's Severest Showdown."
Chronicle of Higher Education 21 (April 197 5).
Mendenhall, Thomas C.
"Women's Education and the
Educated Woman."
School and Society, November
19, 1960, pp. 436-439.
Miller, Minnie.
"Women in University Teaching."
Journal
of American Association of University Women LIV
(March 1961):152-154.
McAfee, Mildred H.
"Educating Daughters."
The Atlantic
M o n t h l y , February 1942, pp. 211-18.
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Condition
of Education. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1976.
Newcomer, M a b e l . A Century of Higher Education for
American W o m e n . New York: Harper, 1959.
New Jersey:
The Status of Women in Higher Education.
A survey by Committee W of the New Jersey State
Conference of the American Association of
University Professors, April 1972.

319
Norton, Mary Beth.
"Eighteenth-Century American Women
in Peace and War." In Gary B. Nash, ed.. The
Private Side of American History. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979.
Oltman, Ruth.
"Campus 1970— Where Do Women Stand?"
American Association of University Women Journal
64, no. 2 (1970):14-15.
On Campus With Women. Washington, D.C.:
American Colleges, 1975.

Association of

Parker, Garland.
"Higher Education Enrollments:
Implications for the 1980's." Topical Paper
No. 8.
Arizona: Higher Education Program,
College of Education, 1977.
Parrish, John B.
"Women in Top Level Teaching and
Research." American Association of University
Women Journal 55 (January 1962):99-103, 106-107.
Patterson, Michelle.
"Alice in Wonderland: A Study of
Women Faculty in Graduate Departments of
Sociology." American Sociologist 6 (August
1971):226-234.
Peng, Samuel S., and Jaffe, Jay.
"Women Who Enter MaleDominated Fields of Study in Higher Education."
American Educational Research Journal 16 (Summer
1979):285-293.
Petit, Rita M.
"Attitudinal Study of Faculty Women in
Higher Education in Northwest United States."
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Montana,
1972.
Pingree, Suzanne; Butler, Matilda; Paisley, William; and
Hawkins, Robert.
"Anti-Nepotism's Ghost:
Attitudes of Administrators Toward Hiring
Professional Couples." Psychology of Women
Quarterly 3 (Fall 1978).
"Policies and Practices Should Reflect College Commit­
ment to Equality." College and University
Business 48 (February 1970):79-83,
Pollard, Lucille A. Women on College and University
Faculties. New York: Arno Press, 1977.

320
Pressey, Luella Cole.
"The Women Whose Names Appear in
'American Men of Science' for 1927."
School and
Society XXIX (January 19, 1929):96-100.
Rawls, John.
A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard Universxty Press, Balknap Press, 1971.
Reagan

Barbara B . , and Maynard, Betty J.
"Sex Discrim­
ination in Universities: An Approach Through
Internal Labor Market Analysis."
AAUP Bulletin
60 (March 1974):13-21.

Report of the Governor's Commission on Higher Education.
Building for the Future of Postsecondary Educa­
tion in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan, 19*74.
Richardson, Betty.
Sexism in Higher Education.
York:
The Seaburg Press, 1974.

New

Robinson, Lora H. The Status of Academic Women.
Washington, D . C . : ERIC Clearinghouse^ on Higher
Education, 1971.
Rossi, Alice S.
"Report of Committee W, 1970-71."
Bulletin 59 (March 1973):173.

AAUP

________ , and Calderwood, Ann, eds.
Academic Women on
the M o v e . New York:
Sage Foundation, 1973.
________ . "Discrimination and Demography Restrict
Opportunities for Academic Women."
College and
University Business 48 (February 1970):74-78.
"Women in Science:
Why So Few?"
No. 3674 (1965):1196-1202.

Science 148,

Rudolph, Frederick.
The American College and University— A History.
New York:
Alfred A. Knopf,
T962T
----Sandler, Bernice.
"Sex Discrimination at the University
of Maryland." A report prepared for the Women's
Equity Action League, Fall 1969.
Schlossberg, Nancy K.
"The Right to be Wrong is Gone;
Women in Academe.” Educational Record LV
(February 1974):257-562:
Scott, Ann.
"The Half-Eaten Apple."
1970, pp. 3-10.

Reporter, May 14,

321
Scott, Patricia Bell.
"Moving Up the Institutional
Hierarchy: Some Suggestions for Young Minority
and Women Professionals from the Notebook of a
Novice." Journal of the National Association
for Women Deans 43 (Winter 1980):34-39.
Scully, Malcolm G. "Sloan Panel Reiterates Call for
Single Anti-Bias Agency." The Chronicle of
Higher Education XX (March 24, 1980):9-ll.
Sexton, Patricia. Women in Education. Indiana: The
Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1976.
Shaffer, Harry G., and Shaffer, Juliet P.
"Job Discrim­
ination Against Faculty Wives: Restrictive
Employment Practices in Colleges and Univer­
sities." Journal of Higher Education 37
(January 1966):10-15.
Shapley, Deborah.
"University Women's Rights: Whose
Feet are Dragging?" Science 175 (January 14,
1972):151-154.
Sigworth, Heather.
"The Legal Status of Anti-Nepotism
Regulations." AAUP Bulletin 58 (March 1972):
31-34.
Simon, Rita J . , and Rosenthal, Evelyn.
"Profile of the
Woman Ph.D. in Economics, History and Sociology."
American Association of University Women Journal
60, No. 3 (1967):127-129.
________ ; Clark, Shirley M . ; and Tift, L. L. "Of
Nepotism, Marriage, and the Pursuit of an
Academic Career." Sociology of Education 39,
No. 4 (1966) :344-358"!
Simpson, Lawrence A.
"A Myth is Better Than a Miss:
Men Get the Edge in Academic Employment."
College and University Business XLVIII (February
1970):73.
________ . "Attitudes of Higher Education Employing
Agents Toward Academic Women." Graduate Comment
12 (December 1969):41-46.
________ . "A Study of Employing Agents' Attitudes
Toward Academic Women in Higher Education."
Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, 1968.

322
Solomon, Lewis D . , and Heeter, Judith S.
"The Case for
Preferential Hiring." Change 64 (June 1977):64.
"Status of Women in College and University Faculties."
School and Society XXI (January 3, 1925):16.
Strommer, Diane W.
"Whither Thou Goest: Feminism and
the Education of Women.” Journal of NAWDAC 39
(Winter 1976):85.
Summers, Gene F . , ed. Attitude Measurement.
Rand McNally & Co., 1971.

Chicago:

Suelzle, Marijean.
"Women in Labor."
In James M.
Henslin and Larry T. Reynolds, eds., Social
Problems in American Society. Boston:
Allyn
and Bacon, 197 9.
Tanur, Judith M . , and Caser, Rose L.
"Pockets of
’Poverty' in the Salaries of Academic Women."
AAUP Bulletin, March 1978, pp. 26-30.
Taylor, James M.
"College Education for Girls in
America Prior to the Opening of Vassar College."
Educational Review XLIV (October 1912):217-233.
Theodore, Athena, ed.
The Professional Woman.
Schenkman, 1971.

Cambridge:

________ .
Academic Women in Protest.
Expanded Version
of a Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Society for the Study of Social Problems.
New York, New York, 1973.
Thomas, M. Carey.
"Present Tendencies in Women's College
and University Education." Educational Review,
January 1908.
Tibbetts, Sylvia-Lee.
"Sex Role Stereotyping: Why Women
Discriminate Against Themselves." Journal of
NAWDAC, Summer 1975, pp. 180-181.
Tidball, Elizabeth.
"Of Men and Research:
The Dominate
Themes in American Higher Education Include
Neither Teaching Nor Women." Journal of Higher
Education XLVII (July 1976):388.

323
_________. "On Liberation and Competence.”
R ecord, Spring 1976.

Educational

T obias, Sheila, and Rumbarger, Margaret.
"Full-Status
Part-Time''Faculty. " In W. Todd Furniss and
Patricia Alberg Graham, eds., Women in Higher
Education. Washington, D . C . : American Council
on Educatioi
1974.
Tuckman, Barbara H . , and Tuckman, Howard P.
"PartTimers, Sex Discrimination, and Career Choice at
Two-Year Institutions:
Further Findings From
the AAUP Survey." Academe— Bulletin of the AAUP
66 (March 1980):71-76.
Van Alstyne, Carol, and Withers, Julie S. Women and
Minorities on Administration of Higher Education
Institutions:
Employment Patterns and Salary
Comparisons. Washington:
College and
University Personnel Association, 1977.
Wasserman, Elga; Lewis, Arie Y.; and Bleiweis, Linda H.,
e d s . Women in Academia:
Evolving Policies
Toward Equal Opportunities.
New York:
Praeger,
1975.
Waif, Wendy C . , and Fligstein, Neil D.
"Sex and
Authority in the Work Place:
The Causes of
Sexual Inequality."
American Sociological
Review 44 (April 1979):235-252.
Weidman, Carla Sue, and Weidman, Jack C.
"The Woman
Professor of Education:
Social and Occupational
Characteristics."
Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Washington, D.C., April 1, 1975.
Westervelt, Ester Manning.
Barriers to Women's
Participation in Post Secondary Education.
Washington, D . C . : U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975.
White, Martha S.
"Psychological and Social Barriers to
Women in Science."
Science 170 (October 1970).
Wirtenberg, Jenna T . , and Nakamura, Charles Y.
"Education:
Barrier or Book to Changing
Occupational Roles of Women?"
Journal of Social
Issues 32, No. 3 (1976):165-179.

324
Students,
"Women in Higher Education in New York State:
Faculty and Administration." An information
paper prepared by the University of the State of
New York and the State Education Department,
Albany, New York, July 1976.
"Women in Michigan: Academic Sexism Under Siege."
Science 178 (November 24, 1972):841-843.
Woody, Thomas. A History of Women’s Education in the
United States. New York: Octagon, 1966.
"Sex Discrimination in Higher
Young, Margaret Moses.
Education." The Civil Liberties Review, July/
August 1978, pp. 41-43.
Introductory
Young, Robert K., and Beldman, Donald.
Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
Zellman, Gail.
"The Role of Structural Factors in
Limiting Women’s Institutional Participation.”
The Journal of Social Issues 32 (Summer 1976).