Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of Institutional Intervention on Minimizing Demographic Inertia and Improving the Representation of Women Faculty in Higher Education (Bakian & Sullivan 2010)

Review Guidelines

Citation

Bakian, A.V., & Sullivan, K.A. (2010). The Effectiveness of Institutional Intervention on Minimizing Demographic Inertia and Improving the Representation of Women Faculty in Higher Education. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 2(2), 207-234.

Highlights

  • This study’s objective was to examine the effect of the ADVANCE program sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) on women’s representation among tenured and tenure-track faculty.
  • The study took place at one unnamed research university. The authors compared the transition probabilities (that is, the probabilities of being hired, retained, or promoted) for men and women, before and during the period ADVANCE was in effect.
  • The study found that the ADVANCE program enhanced women’s representation among faculty in science and engineering departments.
  • The quality of causal evidence presented in this study is low. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the ADVANCE program. Other factors are likely to have contributed.

Intervention Examined

The ADVANCE Program

Features of the Intervention

Since 2001, the NSF has invested more than $130 million in support of ADVANCE programs nationwide1. These programs aim to increase the promotion and retention of women in academic science and engineering careers through interventions at institutions of higher education. The specific program components vary across institutions implementing them. The research university featured in this study adopted strategies to increase the transparency of the tenure-track promotion system, improve faculty recruitment practices, advance collaboration in research activities, and provide child care options for faculty.

Features of the Study

The authors analyzed data on career transitions of tenured or tenure-track faculty in science and engineering departments from the university in question from 1998 to 2007. This encompassed 19 departments covering math, statistics, life sciences, agricultural sciences, natural resources, applied economics, and engineering. The authors estimated the probabilities of being hired, retained, and promoted, separately for men and women and different faculty ranks (assistant, associate, and full professor). They then compared the transition probabilities of women during ADVANCE with those of women before ADVANCE and men and women in both periods.

Findings

  • The study found that women experienced higher promotion probabilities under ADVANCE than they did before ADVANCE.
  • Women at the assistant professor rank had lower attrition under ADVANCE than they did before ADVANCE, but their counterparts at the full professor rank had higher attrition under ADVANCE.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The authors compared the transition rates of female science and engineering faculty before ADVANCE with those of female faculty while ADVANCE was in effect. However, it is not possible to attribute differences over this period to the ADVANCE program; the transition probabilities could reflect differences in female faculty representation over time that would have occurred even in the absence of ADVANCE.

The authors also compared the transition rates of women with those of men. These two groups differ fundamentally and there is no evidence that they experienced similar trends in their hiring, retention, and promotion rates in the pre-ADVANCE period. Therefore, comparing these rates during the ADVANCE period does not provide a test of what would have happened to women’s transition probabilities had the ADVANCE program not existed.

Finally, the authors also estimated some simulations projecting women’s and men’s representation on faculty using the baseline probabilities estimated in the first stage of their analysis. However, this type of analysis does not support causal inference.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this study is low. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the ADVANCE program. Other factors are likely to have contributed.

Reviewed by CLEAR

December 2014