No abstract

Using a sample of women natural sciences and engineering (NSE) faculty members from 13 Canadian universities, we investigated the impact of women academic leaders on women professors’ perceptions of gender bias. Logistic regression analyses indicated that professors who perceived more workplace gender bias were more likely to feel that they needed to work harder to be seen as legitimate scholars than those who perceived less gender bias. However, professors who perceived that women were better represented amongst their faculty/college and university leadership were significantly less likely to feel that they needed to work harder for legitimacy than those who perceived greater gender bias in leadership. These results suggest that addressing gendered university hierarchies may moderate the impact of gender bias on women in NSE units.

A mixed methods analysis of Canadian natural sciences and engineering faculty’s workplace experiences revealed a gendered care gap with women reporting greater responsibility for students’ personal and mental health problems, including suicidal thoughts and behaviour, and sexual assault. Statistical results demonstrated that women were approached by a significantly greater number of students to discuss serious non-academic issues and experienced more stress as a result. A comparative qualitative analysis found faculty’s responses to students’ problems were informed by gendered cultural care expectations thatrequire women to be more supportive than men. However, female and male faculty’s care burden may also be exacerbated by institutional factors, including senior administrative positions, undergraduate class loads, and teaching courses with mental health-related content. As such, the care gap is relevant to understanding the extent to which gender inequality is embedded within the structure of universities.

The university reward structure has traditionally placed greater value on individual research excellence for tenure and promotion, influencing faculty’s allocation of time and definition of worthwhile labour. We find gender differences in Canadian natural sciences and engineering faculty’s opinions of the traditional criteria for measuring academic success that are consistent with an implicit gender bias devaluing service and teamwork. Most women recommend significant changes to the traditional model and its foundation, while a substantial minority of men support the status quo. However, this comparative qualitative analysis finds more cross-gender similarities than differences, as most men also want a more modern definition of success, perceiving the traditional model to be disproportionately supportive of one type of narrow research scholarship that does not align with the realities of most faculty’s efforts. Thus, this study suggests a discrepancy between traditional success criteria and faculty’s understanding of worthwhile labour.

No abstract