III. Profile of Academic Women Psychologists
This section presents a profile of women psychologists in academe,
beginning with women who hold master's and doctorate degrees and who are employed
in academe in a variety of roles and institutions, as well as data on faculty
in departments granting advanced degrees in psychology. To present a more complete
picture of women psychologists in academe, we briefly consider women who teach
in both 2- and 4-year institutions. However, the most detailed information we
provide is based on women in 4-year institutions and in graduate departments
of psychology.
Employment Roles for Women Holding Master's or Doctorates in Psychology
Individuals who have their highest degrees in psychology are a substantial
proportion of all faculty. The 1993 Survey of Postsecondary Faculty of the National
Center on Educational Statistics (NCES),1 showed that 44,884 individuals
(4.3% of the sample) held their highest degrees in psychology; 46.4% of this
population was female. Thus, about 1 in 23 faculty members had a degree in a
field of psychology. As we note later, not all of those faculty members with
doctorates in psychology (including PhDs and EdDs) teach in psychology; they
are also found in areas such as education, business, and health. Although a
majority of postsecondary faculty with psychology degrees held doctoral degrees
(61.7%), a substantial proportion (29.9%) were at the master's level, and 7.2%
held bachelor's degrees or lower.
Fewer women than men faculty in psychology (all institutions) report the doctorate as their highest degree (in 1993, 51.8% of women versus 70.3% of men, respectively). Looking at the data another way, men held the majority of psychology doctorates in academe (61.0%). In contrast, women held a slight majority of psychology master's degrees (57.6%) as their highest degree. Thus, despite the fact that the doctorate is an important credential for success in academe, psychologists with master's degrees also find opportunities for academic employment, and the majority of individuals with master's degrees in psychology are women. Although most individuals with master's degrees (60%) were found in 2-year colleges, regardless of gender, a substantial proportion (40%) was employed in 4-year institutions.
Ethnic minority status of individuals holding doctorates
More than 8 out of 10 psychology doctorates are granted to Whites, regardless of gender. Although the proportion of ethnic minorities earning doctorates is slowly rising, it continues to be unacceptably low in all subfields. In 1996, 3,474 of the 3,763 psychology doctorates awarded were earned by individuals whose race could be identified (NRC, 1998). These figures were presented by gender and ethnicity. Only 14.5% of those 3,474 doctorates went to ethnic minorities (NRC, 1998). As can be seen in Table 1, the small sample sizes would make detailed presentations problematic and raise issues of confidentiality. Further,as seen in Table 2, the proportion of faculty women of color is quite small, thus making it impossible to use the 1993 NCES data to develop a detailed portrait of their status. Although we are not able to include a separate profile of ethnic minority women's status in this report, the fact that their numbers are so low speaks volumes about the need for action on ethnic minority women's issues. These concerns are so important that this report includes a separate section in the recommendations for addressing them.
Full-time versus part-time status
A substantial proportion of faculty with psychology degrees holds part-time positions, but a large proportion of that group prefers having full-time positions. Two out of five (41%) psychology faculty with doctoral or master's degrees hold part-time positions; of these, 46% are women and 37% are men. Because women are more likely to hold part-time positions than men, the gender gap in status and power persisting on psychology faculties can be masked unless full- and part-time faculty are considered separately. Furthermore, the immense contribution of women psychologists who are outside of thefull-time faculty role can be overlooked if only full-time faculty are used to construct the picture. The proportion of part-time employees is higher in 2-year institutions, where the majority of faculty are part-time (56% of women and 66% of men at 2-year institutions are part-time), but it is substantial even in 4-year institutions, where 41% of women versus 28% of men hold part-time positions (see Table 3). Most people who hold part-time positions prefer to do so, regardless of gender (53% of men and 60% of women holding part-time positions prefer to work part-time). However, this means that 47% of men and 40% of women hold part-time positions when it is not their preference (Table 4). Thus, while it is important to foster part-time opportunities as a valid career option for both men and women, mechanisms to facilitate transition from part-time to full-time status also need to be implemented.
Age and family status
Men in psychology are older on average than women and are more likely to be married or cohabiting and have dependents. On average, in 1993, males with psychology degrees (doctorates and master's degrees combined) were 3 years older than their female peers (mean ages 48 versus 45 years, respectively). The age difference is even greater for full-time (49 versus 44 years) compared with part-time (48 versus 46 years) faculty. The age difference for men and women suggests that at the time the survey was conducted, they were in different career and family stages. For example, 50% of women were under 45 years of age (childbearing years), compared with 36% of men (Table 5).
Although the majority of both sexes were married or cohabiting, the proportion was higher for men (84%) than for women (65%). Women were more likely than men to have never been married, particularly those working full time (20% versus 8%). Women were also less likely to have dependents than men (47% versus 26% reporting no dependents). These comparisons differed only slightly for part-time faculty compared with full-time faculty (Table 6 and Table 7).
The relationships (spouse, child, aged parent) and age of the dependents are unknown. Nonetheless, given the younger age of the women, we can speculate that men were more likely to be settledin their family relationships, be providing for older children, and have spouses who did not work outside of the home. Women, in contrast, may have been more likely than men to be contemplating a future of marriage and children or to be responsible for providing care for younger children.
Doctoral-Level Psychologists
We now briefly focus on doctoral-level psychologists, that is, those with PhDs or EdDs in psychology, who teach either full time or part time in 2-year or 4-year institutions. Unfortunately, the sample of ethnic minority psychologists in this group is too small to report differences by ethnicity with any reliability. Because of space limitations, this report concentrates on those doctoral holders who have full-time employment with responsibility for generating new psychological knowledge (researchers) and transmitting it to the next generation of psychologists (teachers). Nonetheless, when conceptualizing where employment opportunities might be found for psychologists in academe, the broader context should be kept in mind.
Full-time versus part-time status
For full-time faculty, women are the minority in all institutional categories, while for part-time faculty, the proportions vary widely, with men predominating in some institutional types and women predominating in others. In 1993, 39% of the estimated 27,689 individuals in academe who held psychology doctorates, were women. Figure 1 presents the proportion of women faculty on various institutional settings by employment status (full-time and part-time). In particular, women constitute the vast majority of part-time psychology faculty in private research universities.
Rank and tenure
Women differ from men on the critical status indicators of rank and tenure. The proportions of women and men holding faculty status were similar regardless of employment status (see Table 8). However, women were more likely to hold a lower faculty rank, especially among full-time employees (see Table 9). As seen in Table 10, women were also substantially less likely to have tenure: 52% of men versus 30% of women were tenured. Among individuals in a tenure system, untenured women were more likely to be found on the tenure track than untenured men. Women were more likely than men not even to be in a tenure system, however. Men were more likely than women to say their principal activity was teaching or research and less likely to report their principal activity as clinical service, administration, or "other" (see Table 11). Other analyses of the NCES data show that women's administrative duties were less likely to be in line positions, however (e.g., in 1992 14% of men compared with 5.7% of women served as department chair, while 9% of women compared to 2% of men served as head of a program).
Income disparities
Salary differentials persist, and men are also more likely to have other sources
of income than their basic faculty salary from sources both within and outside
of their institution, increasing the gap betweentotal annual incomes of women
and men. Salary differentials have received substantial attention in the past
decades, and some women have used salary equity surveys to good effect in arguing
for equity adjustments (see Haignere, Lin, Eisenberg, & McCarthy, 1996,
for how to conduct a salary equity study). In 1993, the annualized salary of
doctoral women psychologists employed full time was 76% of salaries of men.
But salaries are not the only source of income from an institution. Indeed,
in many institutions, individuals on 9-month contracts can be awarded a research
or teaching stipend for the remaining 3 months as additional compensation. Such
stipends are sometimes included in the initial offer to an individual being
recruited for a faculty position. Thus, data that show smaller gender differences
in salaries, particularly at entry levels, may be missing a major part of the
compensation picture. Tables
12a, 12b, and
12c provide income
information separately for full- and part-time faculty. When all additional
income sources that come through the academic institution are included for women
who work full time (including research grants that supplement salaries), women's
supplemental income from their institution is 49% that of men's.
Furthermore, among full-time doctorates in 1993, 35% (41% of men and 24% of women) reported having additional employment outside their institution. Women earned less than men in nearly all income categories, but the differential was largest in the outside income categories where the overall income differential for full-time employees ranged from 29% to 51%. As will be seen below, women's younger age and concentration in lower ranks contribute to the income gaps. Nonetheless, these differentials mean that women may be more likely to have fewer economic resources to draw upon to support their professional activities. Buying up-to-date equipment, traveling to professional meetings, hiring household help, and paying for child care are justa few ways that individuals can use financial resources to enhance their careers, and, insofar as women have fewer financial resources to spend on their career development, they will be at a disadvantage.
Graduate Departments of Psychology
Faculty employed in departments of psychology that award graduate degrees constitute
only a small portion of all doctoral psychologists employed in academe. But
graduate departments of psychology are of special importance, for they train
our future generations of psychologists. APA's annual surveys of graduate departments
provide a rich source of information about psychologists in these settings,
including data broken out by gender and subfield (Table
13 and Table 14).
Women faculty in graduate departments
Women are the minority of faculty in doctoral and master's departments; the gender gap is slightly larger for doctoral departments and differs with subfield. In 1998-1999, one out of three (34.4%) faculty in doctoral-granting psychology departments was female; for master's-granting departments, the figure was two out of five (38.7%). The proportion of women varies widely depending on subfield. Focusing on subfields having more than 110 faculty responding to the survey--clinical, cognitive, counseling, developmental, educational, experimental, industrial/organizational, neuroscience, physiological, school, social, and other bio-based research subfields--reveals a range from a high of 54.5% in developmental to a low of 19.3% in experimental.
The proportion of women varies widely by rank and subfield, with larger proportions of women found in the lower ranks. Among the larger subfields, with the exception of developmental and educational psychology, the proportion of men in doctoral departments was larger with each successive rank. This upside down pyramid population structure, in which men are 77.8% of the full professors, 60.5% of the associate professors, and 46.9% of the assistant professors, can be viewed optimistically: A large percentage of women are poised for advancement in the lower ranks. However, given that women have been earning the majority of doctorates since 1986, these numbers are not so heartening.
Income disparities
Salary differentials have lessened but persist at the upper levels and vary
slightly with subfield. Table
15 and Table 16
present median salary for full-time faculty by gender, rank, and subfield for
doctoral and master's departments of psychology. Inspection of these figures
reveals that gender differences in type of department and in rank are the primary
proximate determinants of the overall gender gap in median salary. Although
women still earn lower median salaries within all ranks and in both types of
departments, the differences are not significant when partial correlations are
computed between gender and salary for each rank with year of degree controlled.
This suggests that the current strategies for ensuring salary equity can work
and should be continued. Unfortunately, information on other sources of income
from the institution is not available for this group. As discussed earlier in
this report, however, equity of compensation needs to be assessed based on all
income sources.
1 To develop its profile of women psychologists, the task force used a variety
of data sources. Unfortunately, no single data set covered all the issues of
interest. Consequently, the following portrait is a collage, assembled from
different data sources using different definitions, samples, questions, and
dates of collection. Unless otherwise stated, the information in this section
comes from sepcial analyses of the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty
of the National Center on Educational Statistics (NCES, 1993). Sources for specific
data are cited, and more complete descriptions of the various data sources can
be found in the references.
Back to Top
Previous Page
Table of Contents Next Page
