Non-normative Connections between Work and Family: The Gendered Career Consequences of Being a Dual-career Academic

Abstract

We investigate the way norms regarding the connections between work and family influence the career consequences of being a dual-career academic. We pay special attention to “gender deviants”—men who indicate that their career is secondary to that of their wife’s career, and women who say their career is primary to that of their husband’s. Analyses using survey data from faculty in seven U.S. universities find male gender conformists (men who perceive their career as primary) report fewer negative career consequences than the other groups. Gender deviants have the lowest levels of organizational commitment. Female and male gender egalitarians (ranking their career as equal) report greater organizational commitment. Gender conformity—that is, ranking one’s career and relationship in the manner society expects—benefits men more so than women. We discuss implications for findings, particularly as they relate to recruitment and retention of dual-career academics in higher education institutions.

Keywords

gender norms ideal worker dual-career academic career consequences organizational commitment

Like many social processes, gender plays a significant role in shaping how women and men think about their career vis-à-vis family (marital relationships).¹ Consistent with the notion that the world of paid work reflects masculine ideals and rewards “ideal worker” behavior, paid work—especially career work—is appropriate and even crucial for married men (Acker 1990; J. C. Williams 2000). In many cases, if a married woman works for pay at all, her paid work tends to be secondary to that of her husband’s (Wharton 2012; J. C. Williams, Blair-Loy, and Berdahl 2013). In line with these views, the gender normative expectation is for a married man to view his career as taking precedence over that of his wife and, in turn, for a woman to view her career as being secondary to that of her husband’s career.

What occurs when men and women do not hold these views about the connection between work and family? That is, when a man identifies his wife’s career as primary to his own or a woman views her husband’s career as secondary to her own—what we call having a “gender deviant” work-family connection? Nonnormative expectations—when either a woman views her career as primary or a man views his career as secondary—can have negative consequences. For women, such a violation is inconsistent with cultural norms that she defers to her husband’s career. For men, a violation signals his rejection of the ideal worker norm (J. C. Williams 2000; J. C. Williams et al. 2013); that he is not fully committed to paid work nor is he fulfilling his role as male breadwinner. Little is known about the conditions that might mitigate the consequences of violating the gendered connections between work and family, especially among professional workers.

In this article, we explore career consequences of violating the gender-normative work and family connection among dual-career academics. Specifically, we ask, How does a gender deviant career outlook (in work-family connection) shape the career consequences of being part of an academic career couple? To answer this question, we compare dual-career academics with a gender deviant career outlook with those who are gender egalitarians—female and male dual-career academics who view their career as equal to that of their partner’s career—and who we call gender conformists, women who classify their career as secondary and men who regard their career as primary to that of their marital partner’s career.

We draw on a unique group—dual-career academics seeking faculty positions in a sample of U.S. universities—to answer our research question for three important reasons. First, in such couples, men and women tend to have similar educational training, career goals, and labor market opportunities. In marriages where women and men have different training and education levels, labor market opportunities may differ greatly by gender and account for all (or most) of the gender difference in the influence of work-family combination on outcomes. Thus, because we might expect female and male dual-career academics to look more similar in terms of their decision-making about careers, studying them gives us better purchase on understanding how gender can shape careers. Second, on average, academics tend to be more liberal than professionals outside of academia (Gross 2013). With this liberalism may come a more egalitarian approach to gender relations within marriages or even a tendency toward gender deviance with relation to their careers (with women ranking their career above their husband’s and men ranking theirs below that of their wife’s career). As such, if we observe that gender deviance in one’s career outlook negatively impacts the careers of couples potentially more accepting of this “gender deviance,” it is evidence of a strong gender norm shaping careers. Third, finding that a gender deviant career-relationship ranking among dual-career academics has negative consequences for their later work outcomes is a signal that policies targeting dual-career hires might be of use bringing coupled women and men to academic jobs, a strategy that has the potential to attract and retain women to academic positions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines (Zhang, Kmec and Byington 2018).

In the sections that follow, we describe the complex relationship between gender and career decisions among professional couples. Following this, we describe our data and method. In the Results section, we analyze the results based on multivariate analyses that explore positive and negative career consequences of being part of a dual-career couple, as well as organizational commitment. In brief, we find that nearly all female and male academics in our sample—including women who view their career as primary to that of her husband—report more negative career consequences than male respondents who view their career as primary. Gender deviants, no matter whether female or male, have lower commitment to their university than either gender conformists or gender egalitarians. We highlight our study’s contributions—namely, how gender norms operate for women, but also how conforming to and violating gender norms influence men’s academic career consequences. We conclude with a discussion of the policy implications of our findings.

Literature Review

The Gendered Combination of Paid Work and Family

Work and family have long been regarded as separate and distinct spheres, in which men are culturally defined as the breadwinner in the public sphere and women are responsible for family caregiving in the private sphere (Hays 1996; Wharton 2012). “Ideal workers” are those who can fully devote all of their time and energy to work and who have no additional nonwork obligations (J. C. Williams 2000). In this sense, work and family are defined as incompatible for both men and women, but especially for men whose very masculine identities are rooted in paid work (J. C. Williams et al. 2013).

Although women have become a growing presence in the paid labor force in the latter half of the twentieth century (Percheski 2008), cultural beliefs depicting men as ideal workers and women as caregivers have not changed as rapidly (England 2010; Wharton 2012). In fact, Mary Blair-Loy (2003) has shown that both work and family devotion schemas imposed on women create work-family conflict among female professionals due to the demands and moral requirements from both work and family. Consequently, employed women, regardless of the way they rank their career relative to their partner’s career, do not fit the “ideal worker” (or “ideal academic”) image because the expectation is that family caregiving should be her primary “career” (Bailyn 2003). And if women do regard their careers as more important than their partners’ career, they violate both ideal worker norms and cultural norms of family devotion. At the same time, men who perceive their careers as secondary to that of their female partner’s career also violate both “ideal worker” norm and the societal expectations that he must act as the primary breadwinner in a relationship.

Work-related Impacts of Gender Stereotypes

Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes shape the career decisions women and men make and their workplace experiences. Descriptive gender stereotypes define what men and women are like; that is, men are agentic, achievement-orientated, inclined to take charge, and rational while women are communal, considerate, kind, caring, friendly, obedient, and emotionally sensitive (Heilman 2012). However, prescriptive gender stereotypes refer to what men and women should be like (Heilman 2012), suggesting that women and men who violate the gender norms may provoke societal disapproval and suffer negative consequences of normative discrimination (Cardy and Dobbins 1986; Carli 2001; Dipboye 1984; Heilman 2001, 2012; Heilman et al. 2004; Ilgen and Feldman 1983). For example, Stephen Benard and Shelley J. Correll (2010) found that highly performing (i.e., very competent and very committed) mothers were rated as less likable by female participants and were less likely to be recommended for hiring or promotion than identically performing fathers. This finding demonstrates that mothers experienced normative discrimination; that is, mothers were penalized because they violated societal gender norms.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that violating prescriptive gender stereotypes results in negative outcomes for women both in the general labor market (Heilman 2012; Heilman et al. 2004) and in academia (Bailyn 2003). Fewer studies have examined how deviations from gendered normative expectations influence employed men. What little research that does exist suggests that when men requested a family leave and, thus, violated the “ideal worker” norm, they were more likely to be perceived as lacking a strong work ethic than women, and these men also experienced penalties in multiple domains of their careers (Allen and Russell 1999; Rudman and Mescher 2013; Wayne and Cordeiro 2003). For example, in their study of the influences of the use of flexible work arrangements, Elizabeth D. Almer, Jeffrey R. Cohen, and Louise E. Single (2004) found that male employees who participated in flexible work arrangements were evaluated as being less likely to advance in their careers and less committed to work than their female counterparts. That is to say, male gender deviants received a stronger penalty than female gender deviants due to the “ideal worker norm” and the cultural norms of the male breadwinner.

We consider the ways these gender expectations relate to a dual-career academic’s academic output (e.g., opportunities to coauthor with one’s partner, research productivity), given research outputs are an important way the academy measures academic success (Lamont 2009). We also take into consideration the way a dual-career academic’s gender deviancy is related to his or her academic position (e.g., mobility, institutional prestige) and career goal-setting. Finally, we explore what others have called normative commitment to the university among members of dual-career couples. Normative organizational commitment, gauged by a measure of the extent to which someone feels a sense of obligation and loyalty to their employing organization, is a common method of measuring organizational commitment (Gutiérrez-Broncano, Estévez, and Rubio-Andrés 2016) and used to predict turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational performance (Jaros 2007). All of the outcomes—academic output, academic position, career goal-setting, and university commitment—are worthy of exploration for the fact that they are salient at both the individual and institutional level. That is, institutions of higher education have a general interest in what shapes the productivity and commitment of employees, and these outcomes are often ones used by academics, especially dual-career ones, in assessments of their job-level satisfaction and overall career success.

The above literature has led us to the following hypothesis: Gender deviant dual-career academics will experience fewer positive consequences, more negative consequences, and lower commitment to the university than dual-career gender egalitarians and conformists, net of other factors.

Additional Factors

In addition to one’s gender and work-family connection, other factors shape the academic output, academic position, career goal-setting, and commitment of dual-career academics. First, the way dual-career couples joined their university, especially their use of partner accommodation policies at the time of hire, may be crucial for these outcomes. Organizational policies play a critical role in shaping the work-family experiences of employees (Wharton 2012, 2014). Institutions with formal, written dual-career policies and higher faculty awareness of such policies tend to be seen as providing greater support for academic couples (Schiebinger, Henderson, and Gilmartin 2008). Furthermore, policy use may also signal how egalitarian a dual-career academic couple’s relationship is and their commitment to each other’s career advancement. Faculty who use such policies may also have greater awareness of their need to balance work and life and as such, they may plan their careers in ways that shape outcomes we measure here.

Several characteristics of one’s academic career may be relevant, including the length of time an academic has worked in his or her university. Length of time at a university exposes faculty to greater interactions and events that shape work outcomes. Academic discipline should also be relevant. In particular, STEM disciplines may emphasize ideal work norms more so than non-STEM ones (Kachchaf et al. 2015; van den Brink and Benschop 2012; W. M. Williams and Ceci 2012), making gender deviance in a STEM discipline more related to negative consequences or lower commitment. A faculty member’s current academic status (tenured, on the tenure track, or nontenure track) may also play a role in shaping outcomes. Despite the increasing dependence on nontenure track faculty in higher education institutions, nontenure track faculty have much lower job satisfaction due to things such as job insecurity, lower participation in governance, and poor economic benefits (Baldwin and Chronister 2001; Gappa and Leslie 1993; Waltman et al. 2012). Also relevant is whether both members of the dual-career couple work in the same academic discipline. Given limited department-level resources to hire multiple full-time faculty members characteristic of many institutions of higher education, dual-career couples who share a disciplinary background may fare worse than others.

Finally, being a parent and one’s racial/ethnic background may be salient. Regarding the former, having children may alter the way an academic views his or her career relative to that of his or her partner’s. It may be that men, who tend to face greater pressure for breadwinning when they have children, will see their career as primary to that of their female partners, and women, following gender norms, may place their husbands’ career before their own when they have children. Furthermore, parenthood differently shapes the work outcomes of women and men (Budig and England 2001; Correll, Benard, and Paik 2007; Hodges and Budig 2010; Wynn 2017). In particular, evaluators rate mothers as less competent, less committed, less hirable or promotable, and pay them less than identical fathers (Correll et al. 2007). With regard to race, because African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are generally underrepresented in academia, their experiences may be shaped by their underrepresentation in ways that matter for the outcomes we study.

Data and Method

Data

We address our research question with data from the 2014 Web-based Multi-University Policy Study (MUPS; McCluskey, Byington, Cowan and Kmec 2014). The purpose of the survey was to ask instructional faculty (both on and off the tenure track) about employment at their present academic institution, including questions about university policies, time of hire, dual-career experiences, job experiences, and demographic information. Each survey respondent was given a unique access code that could be entered at the survey login screen to take the survey and assured confidentiality of response. Overall, seven U.S. institutions of higher education participated in the survey, and of the population invited to the survey, 35.6 percent (n = 2,639) participated. See Appendix C Table C1 for a description of universities included in the sample. In brief, universities in the sample are located in a variety of locations (remote town, midsize town, small and large cities). While we do not intend to generalize to all U.S. universities with our sample, the sampled institutions have key features necessary to study dual-career academics. Variation in the size of the geographic location helps us account for differences in job opportunities in nearby universities, which are fewer in smaller, more remote places. Second, our sample includes two nonresearch-intensive universities which allow us to see how career decisions play out when research is not necessarily the driving factor of career evaluation.

We limit analyses to academics who were part of a dual-career couple, both of whom were seeking faculty positions at the time of hire. The survey defined dual-career hiring as a process by which universities offer academic or nonacademic positions to both members of a couple, either when a university recruits new employees or negotiates to retain them. Respondents were asked whether they were part of a dual-career hire when they were recruited by their current university. Out of 2,042 valid responses for this survey question, 14.8 percent (n = 302) reported they were part of dual-career hire at the time they joined their current university. And out of the dual-career academics, 64.6 percent (n = 195) of them and their partner both wanted to find faculty positions at the time of hire.² Our sample does not contain both members of a dual-career couple, only one member reporting about his or her experiences as part of a dual-career couple.

Dependent Variables

Our first set of outcomes taps the consequences related to being part of an academic dual-career couple. We designed survey questions to identify the career consequences salient for dual-career academics, including coauthorship opportunities, research productivity, professional upward mobility, settling for a less-prestigious university, ability to be promoted, and career goal-setting. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to identify underlying dimensions of work consequences.³ We used both a Kaiser test and scree plot to determine how many factors to retain after running factor analysis. According to the Kaiser test, only eigenvalues greater than 1 are meaningful and should be retained. Based on the output from factor analysis for career consequences, we find that the first eigenvalue is greater than 1 (2.06), and the second eigenvalue is close to 1 (0.92). According to the scree plot, the criteria is to keep the number of factors until the plot of eigenvalues becomes flatter (close to flat line; see Appendix A Figure A1 for the results from the scree plot, which suggested we could retain two or three factors instead of one factor as suggested by the Kaiser test). After examining the factor loadings for different factors, we decided to retain two factors and defined the two factors as positive and negative consequences of being part of a dual-career academic couple. Appendix A Table A1 lists the items measuring these career consequences for each factor and results from factor analyses.

To summarize, we identified two factors: positive consequences resulting from membership in a dual-career couple (coauthorship on scholarly publications, higher research productivity, enhanced upward professional mobility) and negative consequences (taking an appointment at a less-prestigious institution to improve their partner’s employment situation, blocked ability to get promotions, changing long-term career goals).⁴ All of the items are highly loaded on the identified factors (see Appendix A Table A1). Alpha tests show that the scale reliability coefficients among these items for these two factors are about .69 and .53, respectively. For each of the factors, we calculate the factor scores as the dependent variables.

Organizational commitment

Previous research suggests that organizational commitment, a latent construct, is best measured using the following items: feeling not right to leave the organization (in our case, one’s employing university), obligation to the people in the university, the belief that one’s university deserves one’s loyalty, and feeling guilty for leaving one’s university (Jaros 2007). We ran confirmatory factor analysis over these items, which we included in the survey, to construct a scale of organizational commitment.⁵ Appendix B lists the items and reports their factor loadings. Factor analysis shows that one factor explains 74 percent of the variance, and all of the four items highly load on the factor. The alpha test also shows that the scale reliability of these four items is about .82. Consequently, we calculated and used the factor score as the measure of organizational commitment.

We computed factor scores for the three dependent variables (positive career consequences, negative career consequences, organizational commitment) with the regression method (DiStefano, Zhu, and Mîndrilă 2009; Thomson 1951), which multiplies the weighted sum of standardized values of the items with scoring coefficients (calculated based on factor loadings). Appendix A Table A2 and Appendix B Table B2 show the scoring coefficients (weights) of each item of the dependent variables.

Independent Variables

We coded respondent gender as a dichotomous variable with “1” for female and “0” for male. A second independent variable is the respondent’s rating of the importance of their career compared with that of their partner. From one survey item (“In many relationships, couples choose to privilege one partner’s career over the other. In your relationship, whose career is considered primary?”), we created three dichotomous variables, indicating (1) a respondent thinks of his or her career as primary compared with that of his or her partner, (2) a respondent perceives his or her career as secondary, or (3) a respondent regards both his or her and partners’ careers as equal.

To test whether relative career importance has a different effect on the outcomes for women and men, we included the interaction terms of gender and the above career-relationship dynamics in our models. Based on the measures of respondent gender and ratings of relative career importance, we conceptualize our theoretical construct work-family connection (gender and career-relationship dynamics) as follows: Gender deviants are defined as female respondents who indicate that their career as primary compared with that of their male partner’s career and male respondents who think their career is secondary to that of their female partner’s career; gender conformists refers to female respondents who perceive their career as secondary to that of their partner and male respondents who think their career as primary to that of their partner; gender egalitarianists refer to those who indicate their career is equal to that of their partner.

Controls

Respondents were asked whether their university had a series of policies related to dual-career couples. These include a formal, written policy providing job search assistance to partners accompanying tenure-track faculty (14 percent of the universities had such a policy); a formal, written policy for hiring accompanying partners who seek/have a faculty position (42 percent); a formal, written program for hiring accompanying partners who seek/have a nonfaculty position (28 percent); informal, consistent practices for hiring accompanying partners who seek/have a faculty position (57 percent); informal, consistent practices for hiring accompanying partners who seek/have a nonfaculty position (42 percent); and whether they ever used the policy. Not all universities had every policy or practice so we note the percentage of universities with each policy in parentheses behind each policy/practice. We created a dichotomous variable coded “1” if a respondent indicated that their university provided at least one of the policies and they ever used any of the formal or informal partner accommodation policies at their current university and “0” either if a respondent did not know whether their university had the policies or if a respondent knew the existence of such policies but they did not use any of them.

Because the length of time a respondent works in his or her current university influences work experiences and organizational commitment, we also include a continuous measure of the number of years working at one’s current university in models. We also include a measure of a respondent’s academic discipline with a dichotomous variable coded “1” if a respondent works in a STEM discipline (following the classification of National Science Foundation, STEM disciplines include Computer and Information Science, Engineering, Life Sciences, Math, Physical Sciences, Psychology, and Social Sciences) and “0” if not (Business Administration, Communication, Education, Humanities, and fields not elsewhere classified). We measure academic status with a set of dichotomous variables indicating a respondent has tenure, not tenured but on the tenure track, and not on the tenure track (having tenure is the omitted category). The experiences of dual-career academics are also quite different for respondents who work in the same academic discipline as their partner so we include a dichotomous variable coded “1” if a respondent works in the same academic discipline as his or her partner and “0” if not.

We include a dichotomous measure indicating that a respondent is a parent to children still in the home (coded “1” and “0” if not). We measure respondent race/ethnicity with a set of dichotomous variables coded “1” for non-Hispanic white and “0” otherwise, “1” for Asian and “0” otherwise, and “1” for respondents who are African American, Latino, or Native American. Because the sample size of dual-career respondents from each of the underrepresented categories is quite small (about 2 percent are African Americans, about 1 percent are Native American, and around 7 percent are Latino), we group these latter three race/ethnic categories together.

Method of Analysis

We predict outcomes with ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models. Our data come from a cluster sample of seven universities, so observations share similarities that violate the regression assumption of independent observations. Specifically, respondents within each university have collective experiences that may not be experienced outside of each university setting, and it is reasonable to assume that each individual is not independent from their institutional context, thus, creating unobserved heterogeneity between the clusters (Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal 2008). To account for these errors resulting from the clusters, we report robust standard errors that correct the standard errors that result from this violation.

Results

Based on the descriptive statistics in Table 1, almost 70 percent of the respondents think their career is equal to that of their partners’ career or what we call “gender egalitarian.” This is consistent with the characteristics of our sample—dual-career academics who both seek faculty positions in universities and, therefore, possess similar educational and professional credentials. Slightly more female respondents (37 percent) than male respondents (32 percent) hold gender egalitarian views of their career-relationship connection. About 21 percent of the dual-career academics in our sample are “gender conformists”; that is, women who view their career as secondary to that of their husband’s career (12 percent) and men who regard their careers as primary to their wife’s career (9 percent). A total of 9 percent of the respondents are “gender deviants,” or women who consider their career as primary (5 percent) and men who think their career is secondary to that of their partner’s career (4 percent).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	M or %	SD
Dependent Variables
Positive consequences of dual-career membership	2.36	1.30
Negative consequences of dual-career membership	1.69	0.94
Organizational commitment	2.22	1.00
	%
Independent Variables
Female respondents	53.99
Career Importance Assessment
Career is primary	14.11
Career is secondary	15.95
Career is equal	69.94
Gender and career-relationship categories
Gender deviants
Female whose career is primary	4.91
Male whose career is secondary	4.29
Gender conformists
Female whose career is secondary	11.66
Male whose career is primary	9.20
Gender egalitarians
Female whose career is equal	37.42
Male whose career is equal	32.52
	M or %	SD
Controls
Used partner accommodation policy (%)	53.99
Number of years working in current university	8.56	8.68
Respondent in a STEM discipline (%)	69.94
Academic status (%)
Tenured	58.28
Untenured, but on tenure track	30.06
Not on tenure track	11.66
Both in same discipline (%)	69.94
Parental status (%)	65.03
Race/ethnicity (%)
Non-Hispanic white	84.05
Asian	9.82
African American/Latino/Native American	6.13
Observations	n = 163

Source. 2014 Multi-University Policy Study.

Note. The sample size is the same for positive and negative consequences (n = 163) and n = 166 for organizational commitment. Sample size differs because of missing values on both dependent and independent variables. Descriptive statistics of the primary independent variables and controls are calculated based on the sample used in the models predicting positive/negative consequences (n = 163). STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

More than half of the respondents (54 percent) used partner accommodation policies when they joined their university. The average length of time working in their current university is about eight years (M = 8.56, SD = 8.68). Approximately 70 percent of our respondents work in STEM disciplines. In terms of academic status, 58 percent of the respondents are tenured, another 30 percent are on the tenure track, and roughly 12 percent are not on the tenure track. About 69 percent of academics in the sample work in the same academic discipline as their partner, and roughly 65 percent of respondents are parents. Finally, non-Hispanic Whites constitute the majority (84 percent) of our sample. Only about 10 percent of our respondents are Asian, and approximately 6 percent of the respondents come from the other three race/ethnicity categories (African American, Latino, or Native American).

For different subgroups, the distribution of key control variables also varies. Table 2 shows the mean values or percentage distribution for each subgroup. First, the percentage of male gender deviants who used any type of partner accommodation policy is the lowest (37.5 percent), and female gender conformists are most likely to use such polices (70 percent). Most of the male gender deviants have a partner who worked in a STEM discipline (87.5 percent), and the majority of male gender deviants and their partners worked in the same discipline (85.7 percent). Second, in terms of academic status, none of the female gender deviants nor male gender conformists (women and men who perceive their career as primary) are nontenure line, and 62.5 percent are tenured. The situation is the reverse for dual-career academics who perceive their career as secondary (female gender conformists and male gender deviants); almost half of them are not on the tenure track. Third, for dual-career academics who perceive their career as primary, female gender deviants are the least likely to be a parent and male gender conformists are the most likely to be a parent. All of these characteristics partially influence the career outcomes of dual-career academics within each subgroup we study. Now, we turn to multivariate analyses to examine the relationship between gender and career importance assessment on career consequences after holding all of these characteristics constant.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Subgroups.

	M or % (SD)
Variables	Female gender deviants (female primary)	Female gender conformists (female secondary)	Female gender egalitarians	Male gender egalitarians	Male gender deviants (male secondary)	Male gender conformists (male primary)
Used partner accommodation policy (%)	50.00	70.00	50.00	46.77	37.50	62.50
Number of years working in current university	7.88 (7.12)	7.50 (7.32)	9.04 (8.89)	8.8 (8.60)	4.57 (2.51)	9.25 (11.41)
Respondent in a STEM discipline (%)	62.50	60.00	62.69	77.78	87.50	75.00
Academic status (%)
Tenured	62.50	45.00	57.97	60.94	37.50	62.50
Untenured, but on tenure track	37.50	10.00	33.33	31.25	12.50	37.50
Not on tenure track	0.00	45.00	8.70	7.81	50.00	0.00
Both in same discipline (%)	62.50	55.00	71.64	74.19	85.71	62.50
Parental status (%)	37.50	70.00	66.67	65.62	62.50	75.00

Source. 2014 Multi-University Policy Study

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Tables 3 and 4 present the results from OLS regression models predicting positive and negative consequences of being part of a dual-career couple. Table 5 presents results from a model predicting organizational commitment among dual-career respondents. In all of the regression tables, we present two sets of models. Model 1 is the baseline model testing main effects while model 2 includes the interaction terms between respondent gender and career importance assessment to examine whether the relationship between relative career importance assessment and outcomes differs for female and male dual-career academics.

Table 3.

OLS Regression Model Predicting Positive Consequences of Being a Member of an Academic Dual-career Couple.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2
Female	0.169	−0.350
Female	(0.163)	(0.625)
Career Importance Assessment (omitted = career is primary)
Career is secondary	0.124	−0.231
Career is secondary	(0.351)	(0.546)
Career is equal	0.751*	0.528*
Career is equal	(0.226)	(0.212)
Interaction: gender and career importance assessment
Female × Career is secondary		0.743
Female × Career is secondary		(0.737)
Female × Career is equal		0.581
Female × Career is equal		(0.560)
Used partner accommodation policy	0.505**	0.492**
Used partner accommodation policy	(0.123)	(0.121)
Number of years working at university	0.022	0.020
Number of years working at university	(0.011)	(0.012)
Respondent in a STEM discipline	0.032	0.042
Respondent in a STEM discipline	(0.194)	(0.180)
Academic status (omitted = tenured)
Untenured, but on tenure track	0.144	0.126
Untenured, but on tenure track	(0.169)	(0.200)
Not on tenure track	0.198	0.197
Not on tenure track	(0.225)	(0.213)
Both in same discipline	0.599*	0.611*
Both in same discipline	(0.185)	(0.180)
Parental status	−0.303	−0.339
Parental status	(0.216)	(0.231)
Race/ethnicity (omitted = non-Hispanic white)
Asian	0.296	0.314
Asian	(0.154)	(0.165)
Black, Latino, and Native American	0.802	0.748
Black, Latino, and Native American	(0.517)	(0.555)
Constant	0.870*	1.094*
Constant	(0.282)	(0.393)
Observations	163	163
R ²	.157	.163

Source. 2014 Multi-University Policy Study.

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed tests).

Table 4.

OLS Regression Model Predicting Negative Consequences of Being a Member of an Academic Dual-career Couple.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2
Female	0.250	0.702**
Female	(0.140)	(0.113)
Career Importance Assessment (omitted = career is primary)
Career is secondary	0.304	0.472
Career is secondary	(0.232)	(0.720)
Career is equal	−0.117	0.092
Career is equal	(0.134)	(0.188)
Interaction: gender and career importance assessment
Female × Career is secondary		−0.463
Female × Career is secondary		(0.841)
Female × Career is equal		−0.537†
Female × Career is equal		(0.226)
Used partner accommodation policy	−0.305*	−0.299^†
Used partner accommodation policy	(0.122)	(0.130)
Number of years working at university	0.001	0.002
Number of years working at university	(0.010)	(0.008)
Respondent in a STEM discipline	0.467*	0.463*
Respondent in a STEM discipline	(0.149)	(0.145)
Academic status (omitted = tenured)
Untenured, but on tenure track	0.153	0.162
Untenured, but on tenure track	(0.129)	(0.126)
Not on tenure track	0.598**	0.607**
Not on tenure track	(0.124)	(0.129)
Both in same discipline	−0.028	−0.030
Both in same discipline	(0.107)	(0.109)
Parental status	0.270	0.295^†
Parental status	(0.157)	(0.145)
Race/ethnicity (omitted = non-Hispanic white)
Asian	0.059	0.030
Asian	(0.292)	(0.260)
Black, Latino, and Native American	0.113	0.153
Black, Latino, and Native American	(0.159)	(0.187)
Constant	1.136**	0.946**
Constant	(0.301)	(0.249)
Observations	163	163
R ²	.197	.205

Source. 2014 Multi-University Policy Study.

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed tests).

Table 5.

OLS Regression Model Predicting Organizational Commitment.

Variables	Model 1	Model 2
Female	−0.002	−0.666^†
Female	(0.077)	(0.293)
Career Importance Assessment (omitted = career is primary)
Career is secondary	−0.088	−0.605
Career is secondary	(0.353)	(0.384)
Career is equal	0.317	0.049
Career is equal	(0.271)	(0.357)
Interaction: gender and career importance assessment
Female × Career is secondary		1.041*
Female × Career is secondary		(0.369)
Female × Career is equal		0.730^†
Female × Career is equal		(0.367)
Used partner accommodation policy	0.375**	0.356**
Used partner accommodation policy	(0.082)	(0.092)
Number of years working at university	−0.015^†	−0.018*
Number of years working at university	(0.007)	(0.007)
Respondent in a STEM discipline	0.117	0.136
Respondent in a STEM discipline	(0.191)	(0.190)
Academic status (omitted = tenured)
Untenured, but on tenure track	0.250	0.223
Untenured, but on tenure track	(0.186)	(0.190)
Not on tenure track	0.140*	0.141^†
Not on tenure track	(0.049)	(0.068)
Both in same discipline	−0.153	−0.131
Both in same discipline	(0.112)	(0.093)
Parental status	−0.099	−0.148
Parental status	(0.082)	(0.087)
Race/ethnicity (omitted = non-Hispanic white)
Asian	0.443*	0.451*
Asian	(0.151)	(0.164)
Black, Latino, and Native American	0.215	0.154
Black, Latino, and Native American	(0.235)	(0.275)
Constant	1.885**	2.162**
Constant	(0.263)	(0.327)
Observations	166	166
R ²	.155	.174

Source. 2014 Multi-University Policy Study.

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed tests).

Positive Career Consequences of Being Part of a Dual-career Couple

Gender is not significantly related to experiencing positive career consequences as a result of being part of a dual-career couple (see model 1). Respondent relative career assessment is a salient predictor of positive career consequences resulting from dual-career couple membership. Respondents who perceive their career as equal to that of their partner are more likely to agree that they benefited from being part of a dual-career couple than respondents who perceive their career as primary. We do not find a statistically significant interaction between gender and respondent relative career importance assessment in model 2 (Table 2). In other words, the relationship between career importance assessment and positive career consequences do not differ for female and male dual-career academics.

Turning to controls (in the baseline model, model 1), dual-career academics who used university partner accommodation policies experience significantly more positive career consequences than those who did not (β = 0.505, p < .01). Furthermore, dual-career academics who work in the same discipline as their partner are more likely to report positive work consequences than their counterparts (β = 0.599, p < .05). No other controls are statistically significant.

Negative Career Consequences of Being Part of a Dual-career Couple

Turning now to an analysis of the negative consequences of dual-career membership (Table 4), we see that in model 1, neither respondent gender nor relative career importance assessment are significantly related to experiencing negative career consequences of dual-career couple membership. When we allow the relationship between relative career importance on the outcome to vary for women and men (by adding the interaction terms in model 2), we see that the interaction between respondent gender and relative career importance is statistically significant: namely, the relationship between having a career equal to that of one’s partner and negative consequences differs for women and men—this work-family situation ameliorates the negative consequences for women.

To simplify the discussion of findings presented in Table 4, Figure 1 displays predicted values of the negative career consequences for the typical female and when levels of the independent variable are held at the sample mean or modal values. Among women, having a gender conformist career outlook (ranking her career as secondary to that of her husband) is associated with the highest levels of negative career consequences. However, the opposite is true for male gender conformists, who experience the lowest levels of negative career consequences. Gender deviants, including women who perceive their career as primary and men who regard their career as secondary, are also more likely to report negative career consequences than gender egalitarians and male gender conformists. These findings indicate that gender conformity and gender deviance have different ramifications for the career outcomes of female and male dual-career academics.

Figure 1.

Predicted probability of identification of negative consequences of being in a dual-career couple.

Turning to the controls in model 2 (Table 4), we see that respondents who are not on tenure track (β = 0.607, p < .01) report more negative work consequences than those who are tenured. Furthermore, respondents who work in STEM disciplines are more likely to agree with the items that measure negative work experiences than those who work in non-STEM disciplines (β = 0.463, p < .05).

Organizational Commitment

Looking now to an analysis of organizational commitment, we see that after including the interaction terms between respondent gender and relative career importance, both respondent gender and the interaction terms are statistically significant (model 2, Table 5), suggesting that the relationship between gender and organizational commitment differs across categories of career importance assessment. Based on the predicted values of organizational commitment in Figure 2, gender conformists (men who perceive their career as primary and women who consider their career secondary) and gender egalitarians have significantly higher organizational commitment than gender deviants. Furthermore, we see that male gender conformists have the highest level of organizational commitment than any other group.

Figure 2.

Predicted values of organizational commitment.

Turning to controls in model 2 (Table 5), if a respondent used partner accommodation policies, they report significantly higher organizational commitment than those who did not (β = 0.356, p < .01). In terms of academic status, those who are not on tenure track (β = 0.141, p < .1) have higher organizational commitment than tenured respondents. Furthermore, respondents who have worked more years in their current institution have lower levels of organizational commitment. Last, Asian dual-career academics have significantly higher organizational commitment than non-Hispanic white (β = 0.451, p < .05) dual-career academics.

Discussion

Our research findings not only highlight a gender dimension underlying the work-family intersections of academic dual-career couples, but also add nuance to what we already know about gendered career outcomes, more generally. Both male and female dual-career academics who perceive their career as equal to that of their partner are more likely to agree that dual-career status benefited their career development than those who view their career as secondary or primary relative to that of their partner. Furthermore, female gender conformists and male and female gender deviants report the highest levels of negative career consequences stemming from dual-career couple membership. That female gender conformists and male gender deviants fare worse than male gender conformists or gender egalitarians is not surprising. For women, inside or outside of academia, societal views of what is expected of them indicate that gender conformity means prioritizing family over career while for men, conformity is career devotion over family. That is to say, female gender conformists and male gender deviants may compromise their careers to accommodate their partner’s career whereas male gender conformists and female gender deviants may maximize their own career opportunities. In our study, this means that female gender conformists and male gender deviants are most likely to accept less-prestigious appointments, report blocked promotions, and have changed long-term career goals due to the challenges of being a dual-career couple. The opposite is true for female gender deviants and male gender conformists who report fewer negative consequences resulting from dual-career membership.

Contradictory to what we expected, female gender deviants were only slightly better off than female gender conformists and reported the next highest levels of negative career consequences. That is, female dual-career academics, no matter whether they rate their career as primary or secondary to that of their partner’s career, are more likely to experience negative career consequences than any other groups. This finding about female academics, who are gender deviant or obedient, in the way they combine work and family reinforce research on broader samples of workers that find penalties for women in the workplace due to both descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes (Heilman 2012).

In terms of organizational commitment, by far, the group with the highest level of organizational commitment is gender egalitarians. The lowest levels of organizational commitment are among gender deviants; women who indicate their careers have primacy over their husband’s and men who indicate their careers are secondary to that of their wife’s career. That gender deviance has negative associations with women and men’s organizational commitment suggests institutional-level process may be at play. For example, female and male gender deviants may experience backlash or otherwise negative treatment (perhaps by way of subtle judgments about their “inappropriate” role) that renders their commitment lower. These findings around commitment imply that institutions, in our case universities, should care about the subtle messages its policies, practices, and its members send about gender roles and its general gender climate. Because both female and male gender egalitarians have high levels of organizational commitment, policies that emphasize gender equity in the distribution of reward (so that women and men in a dual-career couple both feel well treated and compensated) and ultimately equalize career importance among couples may serve to reduce faculty turnover.

Another finding worth noting is that use of partner accommodation policies is related to more positive career consequences and higher organizational commitment among dual-career couples. These positive outcomes could be explained by the supportive climate for dual-career couples in universities that have dual-career accommodation policies. Consequently, implementing partner accommodation policies at the institution-level could possibly alleviate the gender biases female and male gender deviants experience and enhance their working experiences and organizational commitment.

Our research has some limitations. To begin, our sample of dual-career academics is likely different from other couples. What makes these couples especially relevant to study—our sample of faculty couples are similarly (and highly) educated, probably share career goals and aspirations, and are more liberal than a typical couple—means that our findings have limited generalizability to other couples who work in industry or who have vastly different education backgrounds and labor market prospects. Moreover, our data capture only the experiences of “successful” dual-career couples (i.e., the ones who were offered and subsequently accepted jobs and who did not leave their university job). For this reason, we cannot study how gender deviance, conformity, or egalitarian configurations of work-life combinations shape the experiences of dual-career academics who did not get jobs. Elsewhere (Zhang, Kmec and Byington 2018), we are exploring specifically how these configurations of family and career shape intentions to leave.

Conclusion

Overall, we find that gender egalitarianism—when women and men rate their career as being equal to that of their partner—results in the best outcomes for female and male dual-career academics and, ultimately, their employing institutions. Although universities and other organizations cannot mandate gender equity within personal relationships, our research suggests that organizational interventions to help equalize relative career importance in the minds of women and men could have significant impact. One way to do this is by offering women and men similar wages and start-up packages (Bailyn 2003). Workplaces should also ensure their performance evaluation processes (in academia, tenure policies) are clearly spelled out, applied equally to women and men, and free of gender bias. By evaluating women and men similarly at work, couples performing similarly will be recognized as such, and such recognition may go a long way for shaping the assessment of relative career importance in couples. Finally, another way institutions can help equalize careers in the minds of women and men is to minimize the stigma associated with the dual-career hiring process. One way to do this is for universities to create, fund, advertise, and actually implement formal partner accommodation policies. Indeed, our analyses show that faculty who used such policies have higher net levels of positive career outcomes and organizational commitment than members of dual-career couples who did not. It stands to reason that workers with more positive career outcomes, those who report few negative consequences, and high levels of organizational commitment have little incentive to depart and a strong inclination to perform well, outcomes that ultimately benefit the institution and the academic alike.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Table A2.

Scoring Coefficients for Items Measuring Career Consequences (Promax Rotation).

Career consequence items	Factor 1 (positive consequences)	Factor 2 (negative consequences)
My spouse/partner and I coauthor on scholarly publications.	0.10	0.07
I have taken an appointment at a less-prestigious institution than I wanted to improve my spouse/partner’s career employment situation.	−0.05	0.14
My research productivity is greater as a result of being part of a dual-career couple.	0.55	0.09
Being part of a dual-career couple has enhanced my upward professional mobility.	0.34	−0.21
Being part of a dual-career couple has blocked my ability to get promotions.	−0.01	0.33
I have changed my long-term career goals because of challenges related to being part of a dual-career couple.	−0.02	0.44

Source. 2014 Multi-university Policy Study.

Appendix B

Table B2.

Scoring Coefficients for Items Measuring Organizational Commitment.

Measures of organizational commitment	Factor 1
Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave.	0.28
I would not leave because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it.	0.31
My current university deserves my loyalty.	0.27
I would feel guilty if I left now.	0.30

Source. 2014 Multi-university Policy Study.

Appendix C

Table C1.

University Sample Information.

Basic Carnegie classification	Geographic region and Carnegie urbanization classification
Research University, very high research activity	Midwest/City Large
Research University, very high research activity	Northwest/Town Distant
Research University, very high research activity	Midwest/City Large
Research University, very high research activity	Northwest/City Small
Research University, high research activity	Mountain West/Town Remote
Doctoral/Research University	Southeast/City Large
Master’s College/University (larger programs)	Northeast/City Midsize

Source. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, February 2012.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for the project was provided by a National Science Foundation ADVANCE PAID Grant (Grant No. 1310049) titled “The Two-Body Problem: An Evaluation of University Partner Accommodation Policies with Implications for Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion of STEM Women.”

Notes

ORCID iD

Hong Zhang

Author Biographies

Hong Zhang, PhD, is a research fellow at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Sun Yat-sen University. Her research interests include immigration and migration, gender and work, and computational social science. Her most recent work addresses “strategic gender egalitarianism” in rural China, which indicates that husbands’ migration in China challenged the traditional gender structure of labor but simultaneously reinforced the dominant gender structures that define family relationships and allocate power unequally.

Julie A. Kmec, PhD, is a professor of sociology at Washington State University and an Edward R. Meyer Distinguished Professor in the Liberal Arts. Her research focuses on workplace gender and race inequality. She has published articles on gender differences in work effort, family caregiving penalties at work, the glass ceiling, and human resource practice effects on employment discrimination disputes. She serves on the editorial boards of Social Science Research, Social Problems, Research in the Sociology of Work, and Work & Occupations. She is editor-in-chief of the journal Sociology Compass.

References

Acker

Joan

. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4:139–58.

Allen

Tammy D.

Russell

Joyce E. A

. 1999. “Parental Leave of Absence: Some Not So Family-friendly Implications.” Journal of Applied Psychology 29:166–91.

Almer

Elizabeth D.

Cohen

Jeffrey R.

Single

Louise E

. 2004. “Is It the Kids or the Schedule? The Incremental Effect of Families and Flexible Scheduling on Perceived Career Success.” Journal of Business Ethics 54:51–65.

Bailyn

Lotte

. 2003. “Academic Careers and Gender Equity: Lessons Learned from MIT.” Gender, Work, & Organizations 10(2):137–53.

Baldwin

Roger G.

Chronister

Jay L

. 2001. Teaching without Tenure: Policies and Practices for a New Era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Benard

Stephen

Correll

Shelley J

. 2010. “Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty.” Gender & Society 24(5):616–46.

Blair-Loy

Mary

. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career and Family among Women Financial Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Budig

Michelle

England

Paula

. 2001. “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood.” American Sociological Review 66:204–25.

Cardy

Robert L.

Dobbins

Gregory H

. 1986. “Affect and Appraisal Accuracy: Liking as An Integral Dimension in Evaluating Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71:672–8.

10.

Carli

Linda L.

2001. “Gender and Social Influence.” Journal of Social Issues 57:725–41.

11.

Correll

Shelley J.

Benard

Stephen

Paik

. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112(5):1297–339.

12.

Dipboye

Robert L.

1984. “Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals.” Academy of Management Review 10(1):116–27.

13.

DiStefano

Christine

Zhu

Min

Mîndrilă

Diana

. 2009. “Understanding and Using Factor Scores: Considerations for the Applied Researcher.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14(20):1–11.

14.

England

Paula

. 2010. “The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled.” Gender & Society 24(2):149–66.

15.

Gappa

Judith M.

Leslie

David W

. 1993. The Invisible Faculty: Improving the Status of Part-timers in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Gross

Neil

. 2013. Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17.

Gutiérrez-Broncano

Estévez

Pedro J.

Rubio-Andrés

Mercedes

. 2016. “What We Know about Organizational Commitment: An Overview of the Literature of the Last Decade.” Pp. 1–14 in Organizational Management: Policies and Practices in a Global Market, edited by Machado

Davim

J. P

. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Hays

Sharon

. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

19.

Heilman

Madeline E.

2001. “Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent up the Organizational Ladder.” Journal of Social Issues 57(4):657–74.

20.

Heilman

Madeline E.

2012. “Gender Stereotypes and Workplace Bias.” Research in Organizational Behavior 32:113–35.

21.

Heilman

Madeline E.

Wallen

Aaron S.

Fuchs

Daniella

Tamkins

Melinda M

. 2004. “Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-typed Tasks.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89:416–27.

22.

Hodges

Melissa

Budig

Michelle

. 2010. “Who Gets the Daddy Bonus? Organizational Hegemonic Masculinity and the Impact of Fatherhood on Earnings.” Gender & Society 24(6):717–45.

23.

Holgado-Tello

Francisco P.

Chacón-Moscoso

Salvador

Barbero-García

Isabel

Vila-Abad

Enrique

. 2010. “Polychoric versus Pearson Correlations in Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables.” Quality & Quantity 44:153–66.

24.

Ilgen

Daniel. R.

Feldman

Jack M

. 1983. “Performance Appraisal: A Process Focus.” Research in Organizational Behavior 5:141–97.

25.

Jaros

Stephen

. 2007. “Meyer and Allen Model of Organizational Commitment: Measurement Issues.” The ICFAI Journal of Organizational Behavior 6:7–25.

26.

Kachchaf

Rachel

Lily

Apriel

Hodari

Ong

Maria

. 2015. “Career-life Balance for Women of Color: Experiences in Science and Engineering Academia.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 8(3):175–91.

27.

Lamont

Michele

. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28.

Jill

McCluskey

Byington

Tori

Cowan

Ben

Kmec

Julie A

. 2014. Multi-University Policy Study. Washington State University: Pullman, WA.

29.

Percheski

Christine

. 2008. “Opting Out? Cohort Differences in Professional Women’s Employment Rates from 1960 to 2005.” American Sociological Review 73:497–517.

30.

Rabe-Hesketh

Sophia

Skrondal

Anders

. 2008. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. 2nd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

31.

Rudman

Laurie A.

Mescher

Kris

. 2013. “Penalizing Men Who Request a Family Leave: Is Flexibility Stigma a Femininity Stigma?” Journal of Social Issues 69(2):322–40.

32.

Schiebinger

Londa

Henderson

Andrea D.

Gilmartin

Shannon K

. 2008. Dual-career Academic Couples: What Universities Need to Know. Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford University. Retrieved June 22, 2017 (http://101.110.118.31/gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/DualCareerFinal_0.pdf).

33.

Thomson

Godfrey H.

1951. The Factorial Analysis of Human Ability. London, England: University of London Press.

34.

van den Brink

Marieke

Benschop

Yvonne

. 2012. “Slaying the Seven-headed Dragon: The Quest for Gender Change in Academia.” Gender, Work & Organization 19:71–92.

35.

Waltman

Jean

Bergom

Inger

Hollenshead

Carol

Miller

Jeanne

August

Louise

. 2012. “Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction among Non-tenure-track Faculty.” The Journal of Higher Education 83(3):411–34.

36.

Wayne

Julie H.

Cordeiro

Bryanne L

. 2003. “Who Is a Good Organizational Citizen? Social Perception of Male and Female Employees Who Use Family Leave.” Sex Roles 49:233–46.

37.

Wharton

Amy S.

2012. “Work and Family in the 21st Century: Four Research Domains.” Sociology Compass 6(3):219–35.

38.

Wharton

Amy S.

2014. “2014 PSA Presidential Address (Un)Changing Institutions: Work, Family, and Gender in the New Economy.” Sociological Perspectives 58(1):7–19.

39.

Williams

Joan C.

2000. Unbending Gender: Why Work and Family Conflict and What to Do about It. New York: Oxford University Press.

40.

Williams

Joan C.

Blair-Loy

Mary

Berdahl

Jennifer

. 2013. “Cultural Schemas, Social Class, and the Flexibility Stigma.” Journal of Social Issues 69:209–34.

41.

Williams

Wendy M.

Ceci

Stephen J

. 2012. “When Scientists Choose Motherhood.” American Scientist 100(2):138–45.

42.

Wynn

Alison T.

2017. “Gender, Parenthood, and Perceived Chances of Promotion.” Sociological Perspectives 60(4):645–64.

43.

Zhang

Hong

Kmec

Julie A.

Byintong

Tori

. 2018. “Gendered Career Decisions in the Academy: Job Refusal and Job Departure Intentions among Academic Dual-Career Couples.” The Review of Higher Education. forthcoming.