Background

Although many psychologists are socialized by their graduate school mentors to pursue a career in academia, most do not follow this career path. Data from a 1995 National Research Council survey indicate that out of 3,200 PhDs awarded that year, only 17.5% had definite contracts to teach, although 62% planned an academic career. As is the case in most careers, the path to success in academe can be particularly challenging for underrepresented groups-women, ethnic minorities, lesbians, gay men, and people with disabilities. Sexism, racism, heterosexism, and ableism (Ed. Note: Ableism is prejudice or discrimination based on disability) interfere with achievement in the form of hiring, 1 tenure, promotion, and salary equity. Although it is true that women and ethnic minorities are being hired for academic jobs more often than in previous generations (Crowley & Lane, 1986; Lane, et al., 1990), gaining promotion and tenure continues to be fraught with difficulty for these groups (Brush, 1991; Zuckerman, 1991). Women and ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in academic departments of psychology, and pay inequities by gender and minority status remain (Crowley& Lane, 1986; Wicherski & Kohout, 1996).

Self-study reports from various universities concerned with the status of women and ethnic minority faculty provide evidence of current discriminatory practices (University of Texas Report of the Committee on the Advancement of Minorities, August 7, 1995). For instance, the University of Texas reports documented double standards in evaluation. Accomplishments of women and ethnic minorities went unrewarded or were devalued while relatively minor achievements of White men were recognized. Coupled with the myth that diversity diminishes the quality of academic standards, a backlash against diversity may have increased differences in salary, promotion, and tenure decisions.

More than a decade after Russo, Olmedo, Fulcher, and Stapp (1981) found that "women and minority group individuals are less likely to be tenured, more likely to have lower academic rank, and more likely to be represented among faculty with joint or part-time appointments" (p. 1,321), this pattern persists. In 1993-1994, women represented 18% of the full professors, 33% of the associate professors, and 50% of the assistant professors in institutions of higher education, and comprised 22% of tenured faculty. Pay for female faculty was lower in most of the professorial ranks (Wicherski & Kohout, 1993-94). This pattern of decreased representation as academic rank increases is also evident for ethnic minorities. Just over 3% were full professors, almost 9% were associate professors, and just under 15% were assistant professors (Wicherski & Kohout, 1996).

Some progress was revealed in the 1996-1997 Survey of Graduate Departments of Psychology, by the American Psychological Association and Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology; however, equity has not yet been achieved in tenure status, nor in gender or ethnic parity. Across doctoral departments of psychology, 94% of White faculty, 2% of Black faculty, 2% Hispanic and Asian American faculty were tenured. Of those faculty in doctoral departments who were tenured, 76% of men versus 51% of women, and 71% of Whites versus 42% of minority faculty were tenured. This gender and ethnicity gap did not hold for the "on tenure track or associate professor" with women and ethnic minority faculty present in higher percentages with lower academic ranks. This trend may reflect the changing gender composition of younger cohorts of psychologists and the greater number of ethnic minority faculty who have been trained in more recent years. However, with the changing composition of psychology may be a parallel trend in erosion of status and salary compensation of psychologists or, with this erosion, White men have chosen other professions.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1985), in 1985, 83% of the tenured professors in the United States were White men. This critical mass of White men, while likely enhancing tenure outcomes for White men, may increase feelings of isolation and lack of social support for female and ethnic minority faculty members. Research by Jackson, Brett, Sessa, and Cooper (1991) demonstrates the importance of individual similarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of retention. A study over a 4-year period of top management teams in bank holding companies showed that the level of turnover was predicted by team heterogeneity. Higher turnover was predicted by a lack of similarity to other group members, but promotion was not.

This dynamic is mirrored in many academic settings. Ethnic minority and female faculty are more likely to leave academia and be more dissatisfied than their White male counterparts (University of Texas, 1995).

A critical mass of ethnic minority and female faculty in the department and university, however, is more predictive of retention during the early years of academia rather than the later years. These studies suggest that if female and ethnic minority faculty are mentored and provided with social support during their first 3 years in an academic setting, the number of voluntary academic dropouts can be reduced. The first 3 years in academia, therefore, are a critical period for junior faculty to seek mentors and supportive colleagues, and for institutions to ensure the junior faculty are offered help by tenured faculty and colleagues.

Although great strides have been made in increasing representation for women and ethnic minorities in academe, equity has not been achieved. Studies of academic salaries and rank attainment by gender demonstrate that even after accounting for academic credentials and length of experience, gender differences remain, suggesting different treatment of academically comparable men and women (Bergmann, 1985). Furthermore, data on retention reveal that women and ethnic minorities do not receive promotion and tenure at rates comparable to those of White men (Wicherski, Kohout, & Fritz, 1990). This is not because women and ethnic minorities are less deserving, work less hard to achieve tenure, or make contributions of lower worth or significance than their White male colleagues. Success in the academic arena is governed to a large extent by adherence to a set of explicit and implicit rules and priorities that women and ethnic minorities have had little role in shaping and sometimes find alienating and oppressive. Individuals in these groups are more likely than White men to experience ambivalence about "playing the game" according to the demands of the White male-dominated system (Sandler & Hall, 1986). Many face dilemmas as they try to successfully negotiate an academic career in a setting in which the established goals may conflict with values they hold.