Equal Representation Does Not Mean Equal Opportunity: Women Academics Perceive a Thicker Glass Ceiling in Social and Behavioral Fields Than in the Natural Sciences and Economics

Abstract

In the study of women in academia, the focus is often particularly on women’s stark underrepresentation in the math-intensive fields of natural sciences, technology, and economics (NTE). In the non-math-intensive of fields life, social and behavioral (LSB) sciences, gender issues are seemingly less at stake because, on average, women are well-represented. However, in the current study, we demonstrate that equal gender representation in LSB disciplines does not guarantee women’s equal opportunity to advance to full professorship—to the contrary. With a cross-sectional survey among N = 2,109 academics at mid-level careers (i.e., assistant and associate professors) in the Netherlands, we test the hypothesis that in LSB (more than NTE), female academics perceive to hit a “thicker” glass ceiling—that is, they see a sharper contrast between the high representation of women at the lower compared to the top levels. We test whether this predicts female academics’ lower estimated chances to reach full professorship relative to men in LSB (but not NTE). We introduce a novel perceived glass ceiling index (GCI), calculated based on academics’ perceptions of the share of women and men in their direct work environment minus their perceptions of gender ratio among full professors in their field. Results confirm that the perceived glass ceiling is thicker in the non-math-intensive LSB compared to math-intensive NTE fields. Furthermore, only in LSB (but not NTE), women perceived a thicker glass ceiling than men. Moreover, only among female academics, the thicker the perceived glass ceiling, the lower their estimated chances to become full professor 1 day. Combined, a moderated mediation showed that for women only, a thicker perceived glass ceiling in LSB compared to NTE disciplines predicted their lower estimated chances to advance to full professor level. No such mediation occurred for men. We conclude that women’s higher numerical representation in LSB disciplines does not negate a male-dominant normative standard about academic leadership and success. Paradoxically, the perceived odds for female academics to reach the top of their field are lower in fields where they are relatively highly represented, and this may pose unique barriers to women’s perceived opportunities for career success.

U.S. Women Faculty in the Social Sciences Also Face Gender Inequalities

“…This review and others (e.g., Gruber et al, 2020 ) provide evidence that examining gender disparities in the social sciences is warranted. Less national attention and federal funding have focused on gender inequities in the social sciences because many of these fields have better representation of women ( American Psychological Association [APA], 2017 ; Begeny et al, 2020 ; Gruber et al, 2020 ; Van Veelen and Derks, 2022 ). Despite higher degree attainment among women in the social sciences, psychology, anthropology, and sociology, women faculty are underrepresented at higher faculty ranks and among economics and political science faculty.…”

“…Cultural biases suggest that once women have achieved parity or are well-represented in an academic domain, gender bias no longer exists ( Begeny et al, 2020 ). This review challenges that notion by providing evidence from social science domains in which women are well-represented but continue to face systemic gender biases (see Van Veelen and Derks, 2022 ). For example, women doctoral-level social scientists average $14,000 less than men regardless of academic rank ( National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [NCSES], 2021b ).…”

What makes the pipeline leak? Women’s gender-based rejection sensitivity and men’s hostile sexism as predictors of expectations of success for their own and the respective other gender group

“…Taken together, these findings suggest that gender stereotypes persist even in disciplines where the overall percentage of women is high and that since gender stereotypes' existence is less obvious, they have significant psychological consequences. In line with this view, van Veelen and Derks (2022) found that in the social sciences -but not in natural sciences, technology, and economics -women assistant and associate professors perceived a thicker glass ceiling than their men colleagues and considered it less likely to become full professors the thicker they perceived the glass ceiling to be (with no such moderated mediation appearing for men).…”

“… van Veelen and Derks (2022) had their research participants estimate the likelihood that they will become a full professor during their career. Such expectations of success are an empirically well-established predictor of achievement-related choices and persistence in academia.…”

“…With gender discrimination remaining an issue even in disciplines where women are well represented on average (e.g., Begeny et al, 2020 ; van Veelen and Derks, 2022 ), we expected that women students in the social sciences often have pessimistic expectations regarding their gender group’s future success in the jobs they personally aspire to. If gender and gender stereotypes do not play a role, individuals’ real chances of success should depend on their performance and other idiosyncratic personal characteristics.…”