Plugging the Leaky Pipeline:A Qualitative Investigation of Untenured Female Faculty in STEM

Abstract

The current study set out to highlight the voices and stories of 129 female-identifying assistant professors in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) who responded to open-ended questions regarding their perceived barriers, supports, and experiences on their journey toward tenure. The current study utilized Consensual Qualitative Research-Modified (CQR-M; Spangler et al., 2012) for the methodology and data analysis, as the current study included a relatively large number of women and brief qualitative data. Responses fell into four domains: barriers, supports, needed resources, and miscellaneous responses. Additionally, responses were compared between women in STEM fields with higher percentages of female faculty versus STEM fields with lower percentages of female faculty, with results indicating that women in STEM fields with lower gender equality reported more gender discrimination, more difficult colleagues, and less institutional or administrative supports and policies. Future directions and clinical implications are discussed.

Keywords

science,technology,engineering,and mathematics academia tenure-track Consensual Qualitative Research-Modified barriers supports gender representation

Gendered Career Distribution in STEM Fields

Despite recent advances in the educational attainment of women and their increasing movement into the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, women are still underrepresented among the faculty ranks, particularly at the highest levels. This phenomenon, often referred to as the “leaky pipeline,” highlights the unequal gender distribution in STEM fields in higher education. For example, in 2018, women were earning (49%) of the bachelor’s degrees and (41%) of the doctoral degrees in science and engineering, and represented less than one-third of the STEM full professors (28%) in science fields (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2021). This difference is more pronounced among women of color, who earn less than 5% of STEM degrees at the undergraduate level, later attaining a mere 5% of STEM doctorate degrees that would qualify them for faculty positions (Casad et al., 2021). Moreover, there may be within group differences in STEM fields between more egalitarian and less egalitarian positions and representation. For example, research suggests that male to female ratio among U.S. college majors in biology, chemistry, and mathematics is now about 1 to 1; however, in physics, engineering, and computer science, the ratio is still 4 to 2 (Cimpian et al., 2020). According to the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2021), fields like biological, agricultural, and life sciences have more representation among women, with engineering having the lowest representation (15.4%).

Barriers to Tenure

Quantitative research has highlighted that female faculty in STEM face a multitude of barriers, including gender and racial discrimination, negative workplace climate, and unequal divisions of labor (Xu, 2008). Qualitative research, to date, is more limited and has focused on the experiences of mid-to-late career STEM academics (e.g., Hart, 2016) or non-tenure track faculty (e.g., Haviland et al., 2017). Moreover, with the exception of a handful of studies (e.g., Domingo et al., 2020; Ysseldyk et al., 2019), less is known about how untenured female faculty from across STEM disciplines qualitatively experience the barriers, supports, and needed resources during the process toward tenure. Thus, by furthering the qualitative literature using a novel methodology, the current study sought to examine and elucidate actionable changes that may help plug the leaky pipeline for untenured women in STEM faculty positions.

Past qualitative research has indicated a range of logistical, psychological, institutional, and social barriers among post-doctoral women in STEM including discrimination, career uncertainty, maternity leave issues and policies, work–life balance, and choosing between career and family (Ysseldyk et al., 2019). However, using Consensual Qualitative methodology, Ysseldyk and colleagues (2019) also identified the STEM disciplinary identity as a protective variable. Interestingly, some research has described that maternity-related issues contribute to the leaky pipeline among women in academic science, even when the women were not parents-to-be (Eren, 2022). These findings are consistent with other qualitative research that has indicated that the birth of a child presents a significant barrier to women in STEM (Holmes et al., 2008). Additionally, recent mixed methods research has highlighted gendered and racist stereotypes, along with inequitable distribution of service, a devaluing of service, and lack of consistency about the role of service in the tenure process among female STEM faculty (Domingo et al., 2020).

Progress toward advancing equity for female STEM faculty has been slow notwithstanding the increase in the number of women entering the field. The limited number of opportunities for tenure-track positions for women has remained unchanged (Casad et al., 2021). Hiring discrimination, pervasive gender stereotypes, and a reduction of opportunities for female career advancement were the three highlighted explanations for a lack of progress toward equity in STEM academia roles. Among the noted reasons for the continued inequity, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and discrimination also rank highly in fostering a feeling of not belonging among female STEM faculty (Casad et al., 2021).

Extant quantitative research has highlighted other potential barriers for women in STEM. For example, Xu (2008) suggested that academic culture provides few opportunities for women, limited support, and inadequate leadership opportunities, while Hart (2016) posited a lack of supportive collaborative networks within academia for women. Other research among female faculty in STEM has highlighted institutional barriers relative to intersectionality, resulting in the underrepresentation of minority female STEM faculty (Charleston et al., 2014; Casad et al., 2021). While marginalization is a present phenomenon among women in STEM, female STEM faculty of color only hold 2.4% of STEM jobs and only make up 6.4% of the STEM faculty pool. Additionally, African-American women earn approximately a 25% lower salary than their White female counterparts (Charleston et al., 2014). Kachchaf and colleagues (2015) suggested that women of color in academic STEM positions were most vulnerable to a cumulative disadvantage, due to embodying multiple marginalized identities which distance them from the “ideal worker norm” (e.g., male and White).

Supports to Tenure

Despite barriers to tenure, women in STEM have persisted with various supports throughout their journey in academia. For example, supportive variables may include institutional programs and family-friendly policies, supportive colleagues, and the opportunity for personal and professional advancement (Verret, 2012). Additionally, support received from colleagues and mentoring were more predominant as these relationships allowed for much needed emotional support and guidance throughout the tenure process. Verret (2012) further reported that at the administrative and institutional levels, female STEM faculty identified that having supportive personal and professional outreach initiatives, as well as institutional and administrative policies wherein preparative resources were made available, was of invaluable support in the pathway to tenure. Predominant findings by Dunham and colleagues (2012) indicated that female STEM faculty noted more agreeable discourse and supported mentoring relationships with female mentors when compared to their male counterparts in order to acquire insight on issues akin to work–life balance.

Ysseldyk et al. (2019) also noted positive outcomes in mentoring relationships with female faculty, as the mentorship received would prove pertinent in initiative toward professional advancement. In a qualitative study conducted by Sorcinelli and Yun (2010), an emerging model was highlighted that sought to encourage a more flexible network from which female STEM faculty could acquire support. In this model, the engagement of multiple “mentoring partners” in a collaborative, non-hierarchical partnership provided much support when navigating the domains of tenure, job-specific tasks, and work–life balance. Bartel et al. (2017) also underscored the importance of meaningful relationships at the institutional and administrative level through clearly defined tenure-track requirements and general support for STEM faculty navigating tenure. Another noted area of support was the implementation of work–life coordinators who would assist female STEM faculty to better navigate issues that arise during tenure, such as parenting and childcare, among other supportive measures relative to balancing work and personal life (Bartel et al., 2017). The current study sought to expand on extant literature by examining additional supports to female junior faculty on their tenure path.

The purpose of the current study was to expand upon existing literature on supports and barriers to tenure among tenure-track women in STEM faculty positions, using a novel qualitative methodology (CQR-M; Spangler et al., 2012). CQR-M allows for examination of large samples with brief qualitative data, which is useful for understanding unique experiences from participants in many different contexts. Unlike other traditional qualitative methods which utilize relatively small and narrowly defined sample sizes, CQR-M allowed for us to highlight the voices of women currently on the tenure track in STEM, with the hope of better understanding the commonly experienced barriers and supports across a diverse range of STEM fields during this critical career developmental period (Goulden et al., 2011). Additionally, the current study sought to compare these experiences for women in STEM fields with higher percentages of women faculty versus STEM fields with lower percentages of female faculty to elucidate the difference that gender representation might make on the perceived environment.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994) was used to contextualize and ground the current study. SCCT is a comprehensive model of career development that is particularly useful for understanding how environments affect vocational outcomes. This theory holds that humans are driven by both internal (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, etc.) and external forces (contextual factors) that fuel their development and progression toward their career interests, choices, and goals (Lent, 2013). In particular, SCCT argues that contextual variables in the environment (e.g., discrimination, social support, and job availability) can either act to support or inhibit career progression. It is hypothesized that career interests are more likely to blossom into goals, and goals are more likely to be implemented with better outcomes, when people experience strong environmental support and weak barriers.

Much of the SCCT literature has focused on testing the model quantitatively and has been useful in understanding the retention and persistence of women in STEM fields, particularly for underrepresented populations (Fouad & Santana, 2017). Recently, Gregor and colleagues (2021) utilized path analysis to examine the SCCT framework in exploring the vocational outcomes of untenured STEM female academics. The results indicated that institutional environment (support for work/life balance and career barriers) both directly and indirectly through self-efficacy variables predicted the career aspirations and tenure expectations of the sample of women. SCCT has also been used as the grounding framework for qualitative studies, although less often. For example, Miller and colleagues (2015) utilized the SCCT framework, and CQR-M as the analytic strategy in elucidating the potential barriers and supports for students in the field of engineering. The current study sought to fill the gap in the extant literature by focusing on the contextual components of the SCCT theoretical framework to understand the specific environmental supports and barriers faced by junior academic women in STEM fields, as it is crucial to understand this critical developmental period prior to tenure and promotion.

Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to elevate the voices of untenured academic women, to elucidate the multitude of unique and overlapping work-place and personal supports and barriers that contribute to tenure progression, and to examine perceived needed resources to better facilitate social justice advocacy efforts. Notably, the current study is innovative and expands the previous literature in three major ways. First, the current study utilizes an innovative qualitative methodology that allows for a discovery-oriented examination of a large sample. To our knowledge, this methodology has only been used once before to examine pre-tenure women in STEM (Dunn et al., 2022). Second, the current study includes pre-tenure, tenure-track female-identifying faculty, which is a critical developmental period for academics (Goulden et al., 2011), as attrition and tenure denial are of the upmost concern. Third, to better understand the difference that gender representation might make to the perceived environment, the study utilized a sample of diverse STEM disciplines and analyzed potential differences in noted supports and barriers for participants across two groups: STEM fields with higher percentages of women faculty versus STEM disciplines with lower percentages of women faculty.

Method

Participants

One hundred and 81 participants who previously consented to annual follow-ups as part of a longitudinal study on untenured STEM female faculty career progression (Gregor et al., 2021) were contacted by email for participation. Of those participants, 129 completed the survey (Response rate 71.3%). There was no missing data. The participants had an average age of 35 (SD = 5.3), identifying as White, non-Hispanic (n = 101, 78%), Hispanic/Latina (n = 12, 9%), Asian/Asian American (n = 9, 7%), Biracial (n = 4, 3%), African American (n = 2, 2%), and Middle Eastern (n = 1, 1%). The majority were heterosexual (n = 116, 90%), married (n = 96, 74%), and had children (n = 73, 57%). Those participants who were in relationships primarily indicated that their partners were “extremely supportive” regarding their work (n = 76, 70%). Of those with children, the majority reported having one (44%) or two (49%) children, with the majority of participants with children having at least one child under the age of five (81%). The participants represented a diverse range of STEM fields, with a majority indicating that they were in their first faculty job (n = 114, 88%), were in mostly public/private doctoral-level research institutions (n = 79, 61%), had institutional expectations for high research productivity (n = 84, 65%), and were located in the Midwest (n = 104, 81%). Specifically, the STEM fields represented by participants included biological and agricultural science (47%); engineering (19%); physical sciences (12%); earth, atmospheric, and ocean sciences (9%); mathematics and computer sciences (6%); and other (7%).

Procedures

This study was part of a larger longitudinal project which collected data yearly on a cohort of untenured STEM female faculty (see Authors, 2021). This longitudinal study began in 2018 with the intention of following this cohort for five years during their tenure progression. The current study was part of the first follow-up, which occurred during spring 2019, prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following IRB approval, participants were invited to complete the online study which included a set of open-ended questions that were used for qualitative analysis, as well as a battery of self-report quantitative measures related to the larger longitudinal study.

Measures

Demographics

Data on participants’ age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, relationship status, work status, romantic relationship support, number and ages of children, and characteristics of their current employment (employment age, field, location, salary, hours, and research expectations) were collected.

Open-Ended Questions

Participants responded to three open-ended questions developed by the authors to better understand the supports and barriers to academic STEM women’s tenure journey. They were presented with the following: (1) What have been the biggest barriers or challenges in your path toward tenure? (2) What has been most supportive or helpful in your path toward tenure? (3) Anything that you’d like to add about your experiences?

Data Analysis

Levitt and colleagues (2018) recommend the consideration of methodological integrity, specifically fidelity to the subject matter, when selecting the best research design for achieving research goals. Given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the current study, Consensual Qualitative Research-Modified (CQR-M; Spangler et al., 2012) was selected. As compared to traditional CQR, CQR-M allows for analysis of large samples with relatively brief qualitative data. Also, CQR-M typically does not involve interpersonal contact between the participants and researcher or necessitate an auditor. CQR-M is particularly useful, as it allows for a wide range of viewpoints from participants in different contexts. Given that women in the current study were representative of a diverse range of STEM fields in different academic institutions, CQR-M was ideal for elucidating the multitude of unique and overlapping work-place and personal supports and barriers that contribute to tenure progression. As compared to other qualitative methodologies, CQR-M allows for a focus on the breadth rather than the depth of these experiences and subsequent responses.

Consistent with Levitt and colleagues (2018), prior to the examination of data, the researchers developed a list of their own biases in regard to the study in an effort to be transparent about the influence of their own perspectives and appropriately limit the impact of these perspectives on the data collection and analysis process. Each member of the coding team individually identified potential biases surrounding the types of barriers and supports that women might identify. A discussion amongst the team found that, in general, individuals believed that both barriers and supports might exist at the individual and system levels. In particular, the team expected barriers might include limited mentors and role models, gender and/or racial discrimination, unsupportive work or home environments, challenges with work/life balance, and time constraints; and that expected supports might include: personal resilience factors, institutional and administrative support, role models/mentors, and social or familial support. Additionally, prior to the onset of coding, the first and second authors trained the coding team on CQR-M based on the recommendations of Spangler and colleagues (2012).

Following the recommendations of Spangler and colleagues (2012), the first author reviewed the first 30 participants to develop a start list for domains and categories. The second author then reviewed the list of domains and categories and reviewed the data with the first author until consensus was reached for the preliminary data. The coding team was introduced to the proposed domains and categories and practiced coding several transcripts until there was a high level of agreement. Coding teams then separated, and coding occurred in pairs. Each pair reviewed 15 responses at a time, with the first and second authors reviewing all codes before meeting as a group to reach consensus. Modification of the domains and categories was adjusted through these group discussions based on the consensus of the coding team.

Following data coding, the data were then broken down further to compare differences in the reported domains and categories by STEM discipline. STEM subfields were organized into two groups. The first group represented STEM disciplines with higher percentages of women faculty (both tenured, and on the tenure track) and included biological and agricultural sciences (33.6% female faculty; NSF, 2021). The second group represented STEM disciplines with lower percentages of women faculty, and included physical science; earth, ocean, and atmospheric sciences; mathematics; computer science; and engineering (ranging from 15.4% to 25% female faculty; NSF, 2021). Group differences were made by setting an a priori cut off (Spangler et al., 2012) which the authors set at 10%.

Coding Team

The coding team consisted of the 6 individuals: two White, cisgender, heterosexual, female, early career professors of counseling psychology, and four graduate students in counseling psychology (two cisgender women, two cisgender men; two White, one Black, and one Latinx; all identified as heterosexual).

Results

The first 30 participants were used to develop a start list of domains and categories. Four initial domains emerged: Barriers, Supports, Needed Resources, and Miscellaneous Responses. Consistent with best practices in CQR-M (Spangler et al., 2012) and qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2018), the data were analyzed through an iterative coding process. Participants’ voices were highlighted by including sample quotes illustrative of the domains and categories. Additionally, the data were then grouped by STEM discipline and compared for women who were in STEM fields with higher proportions of female faculty versus STEM fields with lower proportions of female faculty (see Table1).

Table 1.

Domains, Categories, and Frequencies for Untenured STEM Academic Women Broken Down by Total, STEM Fields with Higher Percentages of Women, and STEM fields with Lower Percentages of Women.

Domains and Categories	n (total participants)		n (participants by field of study)
	Total Participants, n = 129		STEM fields with higher percentages of women, n = 60		STEM Fields with lower percentages of women, n = 60
Domain 1: Barriers	n %		n %		n %
Challenging academic work environment	65	50%	29	48.3%	32	53.3%
University infrastructure, policy, and administration	30	23%	14	23.3%	14	23.3%
Difficult colleagues	23	18%	7	11.7%	14	23.3%
General unsupportive environment	8	6%	5	8.3%	3	5.0%
Traditionalist	4	3%	3	5.0%	1	1.7%
Negative psychological experiences and internal dynamics	52	40%	24	40.0%	23	38.3%
Experiences within academia/tenure	40	31%	17	28.3%	17	28.3%
Experiences outside work	12	9%	7	11.7%	6	10.0%
Time restrictions (within the role of work)	49	37%	24	40.0%	21	35.0%
Work–life balance	43	34%	19	31.7%	18	30.0%
Choice point between work or family	33	27%	15	25.0%	13	21.7%
Lack of time for self	7	5%	4	6.7%	2	3.3%
Dual career issues	3	2%	0	0.0%	3	5.0%
Experiences of sexism	34	26%	13	21.7%	19	32.0%
Grant/research funding	26	20%	10	16.7%	14	23.3%
Publishing/conducting research	25	19%	11	18.3%	13	21.7%
Unclear work expectations	18	14%	11	18.3%	6	10.0%
Inadequate mentorship	15	11%	8	13.3%	7	11.7%
Working with students	15	11%	5	8.3%	10	16.7%
Experiences of racism	9	7%	5	8.3%	1	1.7%
Domain 2: Supports
Colleague support and guidance	61	47%	27	45.0%	30	50.0%
General colleague support and guidance	52	40%	23	38.3%	25	41.7%
Specifically from female faculty	9	7%	4	6.7%	5	8.3%
Mentoring	53	40%	24	40.0%	27	45.0%
General mentoring	24	18%	9	15.0%	14	23.3%
Providing help/feedback on specific tasks	19	15%	9	15.0%	9	15.0%
Specifically from female faculty	10	8%	6	10.0%	4	6.7%
Institutional/administrative support and policies	49	37%	27	45.0%	19	31.7%
General institutional/administrative support	30	23%	18	30.0%	11	18.3%
Transparent tenure expectations and process	8	6%	5	8.3%	2	3.3%
Tenure clock extension	5	4%	2	3.3%	2	3.3%
Teaching/course release	3	2%	1	1.7%	2	3.3%
Publication policies	3	2%	1	1.7%	2	3.3%
Positive internal characteristics or behaviors	20	15%	9	15.0%	9	15.0%
Personal external supports	19	15%	11	18.3%	8	13.3%
Social support	16	12%	10	16.7%	6	10.0%
Childcare	3	2%	1	1.7%	2	3.3%
Positive reactions to academia or tenure process	17	13%	8	13.3%	7	11.7%
Professional development	11	8%	4	6.7%	5	8.3%
Grant writing and funding experience	7	5%	5	8.3%	2	3.3%
Graduate students	7	5%	1	1.7%	5	8.3%
Domain 3: Needed resources	12	9	7	11.7%	5	8.3%
Domain 4: MISC	10	8	3	5.0%	6	10.0%

Note. STEM fields with higher representation of women faculty included biological and agricultural sciences. STEM fields with lower representation of women faculty included physical, earth, ocean, and atmospheric sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering. Individuals who reported “other” as their STEM discipline were not included in the group differences data.

Barriers

The first domain included the multitude of barriers that impacted women in their pursuit of tenure. The most prevalent barrier that women discussed was challenges related to the work environment (50%), which included aspects of university infrastructure, policy, and administration (23%); difficult colleagues (18%); a general unsupportive environment (6%); and a feeling that it was traditionalist and hard to change (3%). Women noted insufficient resources and a lack of structure for supporting female faculty (e.g., “Resources offered at the university are very surface level, and I haven’t found my department and university to be very supportive.”) Other participants noted the need to navigate bureaucracy and politics as particularly time consuming. For example, one participant stated, “This lack of accessible information, particularly for every administrative task in the lab from accounting to ordering supplies to hiring people to running a new course, is like a death by a thousand little cuts in productivity.” Participants also noted that the environment was sometimes made worse by unsupportive colleagues, or a conservative and traditionalist atmosphere, for example: “Full professors in my department who have a vote but are not always supportive or encouraging of people, and may in fact be adversarial.”

The second most commonly reported barrier was related to negative psychological experiences or internal characteristics (40%) that impacted women’s ability to perform their work tasks. This finding is particularly interesting given that the focus of the study was on environmental factors. The results indicated that external contexts appear to interact with intrapsychic experiences, in alignment with the tenants of SCCT. In particular, women discussed negative experiences that happened both within academia and tenure (31%) as well as in their personal lives (9%). Women noted that they experienced anxiety and stress related to the tenure process, the expectations for progress, and the difficulty in balancing the different demands on their time. There was also a discussion of distress around the attrition of other women in the field: “I am already seeing my female colleagues begin to leave the university due to lack of advancement opportunity and failure of the university to negotiate counter-offers. Being disheartened and dispirited this year has presented a large challenge for me.” Other women noted that barriers were exacerbated by their own mental health concerns or external stressors. For example, “My own neuroses and anxiety that is making it harder for me to succeed--as I am at a primarily teaching institution, there’s always a voice in the back of my head telling me that I’m not truly good enough to be here.” Another woman disclosed: “Experiencing stillbirth, followed by medical complications, and miscarriage. Managing the burden of a tabu topic while emotionally struggling has been the most significant barrier in my path towards tenure.”

The third and fourth most common categories emerged around time restrictions within the role of work (37%) as well as managing work–life balance (34%). Specifically, women discussed that within their work roles, there were often competing demands on their time, including research, teaching, and services activities that often felt difficult to manage. One participant noted: “Time! The expectations for teaching, service, and scholarship far outweigh reasonable working hours in a day. Not to mention trying to balance family life.” Within the work/family interface, women discussed how it often felt like there was a choice point between work and family (27%), feeling a lack of time for self (5%), or challenges in navigating dual career concerns (2%). One participant described this conflict as such: “Balancing work and family has been the biggest challenge. Being excellent at my job means I am stressed around my kids. Being excellent with my family makes me feel like I am neglecting my work.”

Women also discussed how sexism (26%) and racism (7%) impacted their experiences toward tenure, often noting how sexism and racism intersected and how covert and overt oppression impacted other barriers. For example, one participant described their biggest barrier as:

Unprecedented, shocking amounts of sexism and racism in my home department. Senior faculty threatening others to vote against my tenure case, then threatening the department head to not move my tenure case forward to the college level. Administration does not care, but allows these senior faculty to get away with their behavior.

Another woman of color noted the exhausting work of being tokenized: “the ‘secret service’ of being the only black person on faculty that cannot be quantified or qualified on forms of narratives to show worth.” Other participants described how the sexism they experienced manifested as being unequally evaluated, having higher performance expectations, less support, and no accountability for perpetrators. For example, “Assumptions about my abilities by peers and colleagues. I knew I had no room to make mistakes. Meanwhile, my male colleagues are almost always given the ‘benefit of the doubt’ and were allowed to submit documents later.” One participant notably stated that she would never wish for any woman to enter academia, highlighting the continued role of sexism in gatekeeping women from STEM fields and higher education positions.

Lastly, participants noted how various job tasks specifically were challenging including: getting grants or research funding (20%), publishing and conducting research (19%), and working with students (11%). Women also noted how unclear work expectations (14%) and inadequate mentorship (11%) sometimes exacerbated these experiences. Women often reported that these individual job tasks often intersected with other types of barriers previously discussed, including time restrictions, sexism, work/life balance, and unsupportive work environments, alluding to the often complex interactions of barriers impacting STEM women’s career trajectories; notably, while some of these experiences may affect many women and parents (e.g., work/life balance) or men in academic STEM fields (e.g., administrative concerns), taken together the barriers highlighted unique negative contextual experiences affecting the women’s tenure journey.

Supports

The second domain represented the supports that STEM women identified in helping them in their pathway to tenure. In general categories included supportive colleagues and mentors, institutional policies, personal internal resources and external supports, aspects of professional development, work experience, and working with students. The most prevalent supports included colleague support (47%) and mentoring (40%). Interestingly, when identifying subcategories for these supports, a theme emerged around the importance of both women colleagues (7%) and women mentors (8%). When discussing colleague support and guidance, women noted the positive influence that colleagues often had on their emotional state, as well as work related tasks. One participant noted: “[I’m] surrounded by supportive and understanding colleagues. Some going through similar experiences, others that remember when they were in a similar situation. Many that are great to collaborate with… and can be depended on to help share teaching responsibilities.” Others noted how important it was to have other untenured colleagues, sometimes specifying that having other women was helpful: “I have other junior women also going through this process that have been very supportive, it makes me feel like I’m not alone.... we help support each other to ask for what we need/want from the department and university.”

In regard to mentorship, similar themes emerged including general mentoring (18%), help and feedback on specific academic tasks (15%), and specifying the importance of female mentors (8%). Participants mentioned that mentors not only offered emotional support, but often gave them specific advice or feedback on work related tasks (e.g., “read(ing) my grants and manuscripts”). Another participant commented, “we have a peer partner program in which junior faculty are paired with senior faculty outside of their department but within their division. This program has been so helpful because I can discuss issues that I don’t feel comfortable discussing with my departmental colleagues.”

The next category that women identified were institutional and administrative supports and policies (37%), which included general institutional and administrative support (23%), transparent tenure expectations and process (6%), tenure clock extensions (4%), teaching/course release (2%), and publication policies (2%). In discussing general institutional supports, many participants mentioned feeling the departmental and college leadership (e.g., chairs and deans) wanted them to succeed in getting tenure and provided personal supports or professional resources. Others mentioned university wide supports for faculty, including for grant writing: “The grant preparation support services at my institution. They create the budgets and write the draft budget justifications, prepare the current and pending support documents, etc so you can focus on writing the grant.” Women also mentioned that clarity and support around tenure was very useful; for example, “My department is collegial and the senior faculty really want us to succeed and have set up a system for mentoring us to tenure.” Lastly, women noted that specific policies helped them feel protected and supported around medical and family leave, including tenure clock extensions and course releases.

Women also discussed the usefulness of positive internal characteristics or behaviors (15%) and external supports (15%). When describing positive internal characteristics, women mentioned positive work or personal traits or behaviors (e.g., proactive, creative problem solving, and hard work), which may be viewed as positive coping against negative environmental components. Women also described external supports which included social support (12%) and childcare (2%). Participants noted that social support came from multiple sources including partners, family, and friends. One participant noted how she felt her egalitarian relationship with her partner was one of the things keeping her in academia: “My husband’s working from home and his sharing of parenting responsibilities is the #1 reason I am in academia and am on the path towards tenure.” A handful of women also noted having positive emotional reactions to the tenure process as being helpful (13%). For example, “I have had a wonderful experience. I love my job and my department is very supportive.”

Lastly, women discussed how professional development (8%), grant writing and funding experiences (5%), and graduate students (5%) contributed positively to their tenure journey. Participants also mentioned specific professional development and grant writing experiences offered through their universities (e.g., “I participated in a leadership and teaching course offered through University services”). Women also mentioned that the work with their graduate students was meaningful and kept them on the path towards tenure. For example, one woman stated: “Working with students (the reason that I am here in academia) and seeing them grow and improve and ultimately become successful.”

Needed Resources and Miscellaneous Responses

The final two domains represented responses that indicated the resources that participants needed but were not currently receiving as part of their tenure experience (9%) as well as other comments about tenure that were not necessarily representative of supports or barriers (8%). In regard to needed resources, women noted a need for increased funding, supportive academic work environments, support for teaching, a shift in culture around work/life balance, as well as a need to increase the conversation around the experiences of women in academia.

Comparisons Across STEM Disciplines

When examining the data across STEM fields with higher percentages of female faculty versus STEM fields with lower percentages of female faculty, the results suggested more similarities than differences. As a whole, the groups reported largely similar rates of barriers and supports, with a few key differences (See Table 1). In regard to barriers, the results indicated that women who were in fields with less gender equality, reported more difficult colleagues (23.3% vs. 11.7%) and more experiences of sexism (32.0% vs. 21.7%). Although not at the 10% cut off, there also appeared to be higher difficulties in with working with students (16.7%) compared to participants in STEM fields with more women (8.3%). When looking at supports, women who were in fields with more gender equality reported more positive institutional or administrative supports and policies (45.5% vs. 31.7%) as well as more general institutional support (30.0% vs. 18.3%). Taken together, the results appear to indicate that STEM fields with less women might have a more challenging environment on some aspects of their pathway toward tenure.

Discussion

Results of the current study detail the personal experiences and perceptions of barriers and supports on the path to tenure, during a critical developmental time for untenured women STEM faculty. The use of CQR-M provided a novel opportunity to hear from tenure-track women about their experiences in academia in their own words, while gathering data from more participants than is possible in traditional qualitative methodology. Additionally, the data were sub-coded to analyze differences across STEM disciplines, with a focus on how the context of academia varied for women in STEM fields with more gender representation versus STEM fields with less gender representation. Across the most frequently reported experiences, the same factors appeared to serve as both barriers and supports to the tenure journey for women in the current study. These factors may be compared to a pendulum, with certain qualities and experiences within each factor providing help or harm to the individual. In addition, findings from the current study highlight the costs of working toward tenure and the difficult psychological consequences of the process. Whether administrators, colleagues, and people in one’s personal life serve as supports or barriers appears to influence the extent to which high levels of stress caused by the tenure process result in negative outcomes for untenured female faculty, thus representing the impact of contextual factors on internal experiences theorized by SCCT. In support of the tenets of SCCT, the level of internal and external barriers and supports shifts the quality of the tenure experience and outcomes for women in STEM. Similar to a pendulum swinging, a female faculty member’s experience may be tied to the forces pushing and pulling them, with many being largely outside their control, as Lent (2013) discusses.

The barriers and supports identified by untenured STEM women faculty in the current study largely fell into two categories: factors related to the work environment and nature of their work, and factors related to personal life outside of work. Within the academic work environment, administration, policies, and colleagues were described by women as particularly impactful and could serve as either helpful or harmful. Administrators and administrative policies served as barriers for some women, such as lack of financial or logistical support for research labs. On the other hand, administration and policies provided support as well. For example, when department chairs and deans provided instrumental and emotional support or leave policies, this allowed women to meet work and personal needs without impairing their progress toward tenure. The importance of family-supportive leave policies has been highlighted by previous research where among STEM postdocs, the negative effect of perceived family-supportive policies on job satisfaction and sense of belonging was stronger for women than men (Moors et al., 2014). In addition, perceptions of family-supportive policies correlated positively with career aspirations and expectations of receiving tenure and negatively with impostor beliefs and perceived career barriers (Gregor et al., 2021). Given the gendered expectations of unpaid labor for women in academia at home (e.g., Toffoletti & Starr, 2016), administrative policies, such as family-supportive leave policies, could serve to reduce the unique barriers faced by women in academia. Those in administrative positions have power through allocation of resources, policy decisions, and interactions with individual faculty members to either facilitate or hinder STEM women faculty’s journey toward tenure.

Similarly, relationships among colleagues and the general atmosphere within departments can serve to either support or block female STEM faculty in their pursuit of tenure. Consistent with previous literature (e.g., Hart, 2016; Riffle et al., 2013), participants described situations ranging from difficulty navigating departmental politics, lack of support or willingness to collaborate from colleagues (including senior faculty), and not being respected or taken seriously. Previous research has found that women faculty in STEM academic departments were more likely than their men counterparts to feel that they had less influence, less experiences of collegiality, and greater experiences of exclusion from professional networks within their department (Hart, 2016; Riffle et al., 2013). Given the importance of collaboration in research productivity (Fox, 2008), being excluded from supportive institutional networks poses significant consequences for women STEM faculty. Relatedly, several participants in the current study noted that difficulty finding research collaborators made their work more challenging.

On the other end of the pendulum, support from colleagues was the most frequently identified support for STEM women faculty’s path to tenure. Further, formal and informal mentoring experiences emerged as important supports, both generally and from other women. STEM women faculty interviewed by Dunham and colleagues (2012) identified that conversations with women mentors, compared to men, were more meaningful and helpful regarding issues of work–life balance. The underrepresentation of women in STEM academia broadly (e.g., NSF, 2021) may contribute to the importance of same-gender mentorship. The current results regarding the importance of mentorship from other STEM women faculty, in conjunction with previous research, highlight the uniqueness of experiences in STEM academia for women.

Several participants also reported experiences of sexism perpetrated by colleagues within their department, for example being held to higher standards than male colleagues. Although fewer participants described experiences of racism, some participants expounded upon this experience. These findings are particularly important since the research questions did not ask directly about sexism or racism, and the sample was largely White. Consistent with the present findings, results of previous research have identified gendered inequalities in division of labor, such that women are expected to take on more service and teaching requirements than their male peers (Domingo et al., 2020; Hart, 2016). In addition, when assessing the prevalence of gendered microaggressions experienced by STEM women faculty, Yang and Carroll (2016) found that 40% of participants had been ignored or had their authority challenged in a professional setting, and 25% had experienced comments about their assertiveness or assumptions of inferiority of their work compared to men’s. These findings also complement results that highlight dropout in academia among female academics of color in STEM (e.g., Liu et al., 2019).

Further, the current study found that participants in STEM fields with relatively lower proportions of women faculty (i.e., biological and life sciences) more frequently reported experiences with difficult colleagues and sexism and less frequently reported support from the institution and administrative policies compared to their counterparts in fields with higher proportions of women faculty. These results further support the importance of understanding women STEM faculty’s experience in the context of gender. Previous research has found that in academia generally, women in men-dominated workgroups were more likely to report gender harassment than their counterparts in gender parity or women-dominated groups (Kabat-Farr & Cortina, 2014). Similarly, women faculty in engineering (a particularly under-represented field; NSF, 2021) were more likely than men to leave their position before receiving tenure, which was not the case for women in STEM fields closer to gender parity (Gumpertz et al., 2017). The current results further support that women in the most under-represented STEM fields may experience a particularly difficult interpersonal climate and highlight the importance of plugging the leaky pipeline.

Outside of the work environment, personal relationships and life roles were reported to both help and hinder women’s career paths, depending on the faculty member’s unique situation. In particular, STEM women faculty noted work–life balance as a challenge on their tenure path, with some noting that the time committed to their families took time and energy away from work tasks. This was particularly prevalent among women with young children. Previous research on work–life conflict among academic women has identified the impact of masculine norms in academia that expect no changes in productivity based on family or caregiver status and perceptions that women must make a choice between academic career accomplishments and having a family (McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018). In addition, among a sample of STEM faculty in the United Kingdom, more women (34%) than men (6%) reported making use of parental leave (Drew & Marshall, 2021), highlighting gender-based disparities in care-giving expectations of women in academia. When considering results of previous research, findings of the current study regarding barriers posed by navigating work–life balance may reflect unique, gendered aspects of the experience of women in STEM academia.

Notably, fewer women identified aspects of their personal life as supports than women who identified such factors as barriers. Those who did mention supportive relationships identified partners, friends, and family as supportive of their path toward tenure. Generally, research tends to focus on the role of family-supportive policies and departmental climate in influencing work–life balance for academic women rather than the roles of people in one’s personal life (e.g., Denson et al., 2018). However, gender norms and stereotypes that women are primarily responsible for family caregiving and thus disproportionately expending time and energy spent on unpaid labor have been identified as significant barriers to work–life balance as well (McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016). It is clear that balancing demands on time and energy coming from a range of roles within and outside of work, as well as a desire to be present and emotionally invested in each role, is a challenge and at times a barrier for women STEM faculty working to obtain tenure.

Finally, the results of the current study make an important contribution to the literature by highlighting the negative psychological consequences of pursuing tenure for STEM women faculty. Women described feeling exhausted, stressed, frustrated, and discouraged as a result of their work toward tenure. It is important to highlight again the current study’s findings regarding the role of sexism in creating an unsupportive and harmful work environment given the impact of a negative work environment on experiences of psychological distress. These findings are consistent with previous research in which STEM postdoc women identified anxiety, depression, stress, and stress-related physical health concerns related to the pressures of work–life balance (Ysseldyk et al., 2019). Several participants in the current study discussed experiences of impostor phenomenon, while others discussed the unrealistic and competing demands on their time. Given the importance of research productivity for tenure and promotion, disproportionate expectations for teaching and service expectations for women in academia compared to men reported in previous research (Hart, 2016) contribute to unrealistic demands on the current participants’ time. Although previous research has highlighted that women faculty in STEM academia are less likely to obtain tenure than their male counterparts (e.g., Goulden et al., 2011), few studies have explored the immense emotional and psychological cost of tenure-track positions for women in STEM academia. Although no direct comparisons can be made to potential experiences of psychological distress for men in STEM academia based on the results of the current study, considering these results in the context of participants’ reports of sexism, the importance of support from other women in the field specifically, and gendered expectations in family life suggest that there are aspects of work-related stress unique to women in STEM academia.

Implications

The results of the current study offer several practical implications at the institutional, departmental, and intrapersonal level. Starting at the institutional level, increasing policy support for work–life balance may be necessary for enriching the experiences of untenured women faculty in STEM while mitigating the detrimental effects of having to sacrifice personal and/or professional life in order for its counterpart to flourish. Given findings that women faculty in more under-represented STEM fields less frequently reported experiencing administrative and policy support, universities should make a concerted effort to ensure they are not overlooking the needs of this group in departments where women are particularly outnumbered. Specific policies outlined in the literature that are supported by the current findings are providing flexible work scheduling, time off for childbirth or adoption, and caregiving-related breaks without penalty (Gregor et al., 2021; Hart, 2016; Moors et al., 2014). This is relevant as our study showed the demands of caregiving and professional obligations as impediments to full engagement in each area. Also, as the current study shows, institutions could better serve female faculty in STEM by creating and promoting greater support around grant writing, peer relations, and mentorship programs. Female faculty in STEM would also benefit from institutions offering the option to stop the tenure clock when faced with extenuating personal challenges, such as family emergencies, and offering paid-leave when such circumstances arise (Dasgupta & Stout, 2014).

At the departmental level, the current study illustrates the significance of the workplace climate in serving as a barrier or support. The findings emphasize a need for the reconfiguration of unsupportive departmental climates into settings where colleague support is expected and extensive. Taking a more nuanced look, sexism was identified as one factor contributing to such unsupportive work environments. Therefore, the current study offers support for implementing training, professional development opportunities, and lectures that may improve the awareness and practices of male colleagues (Bilimoria et al., 2008). Additionally, in combating the intersection of racism and sexism in academia, Liu and colleagues (2019) suggest interventions including implicit bias training, targeted hiring to increase diversity and representation, increasing search committee diversity, creating social support networks, mentorship programs, establishing equal and clear workload distribution, refusing additional service requests, and rewarding service work in a formal capacity.

This study also offers support for integrating mentoring programs for untenured women in STEM as another way of cultivating a supportive work environment. Dasgupta and Stout (2014) suggest this may be done by incentivizing mentoring as a tool for building an inclusive climate. They recommend that women STEM faculty seek out professional development opportunities through professional societies in order to work with others in similar situations to anticipate and plan for barriers they may encounter. Given findings from the current study that tenure-track women STEM faculty identified similar barriers, seeking out opportunities to problem-solve together and learn from the similar experience of others may be beneficial. Lastly, given that time restrictions were identified as a barrier among participants, it becomes apparent that an even distribution of work between faculty members, through initiatives such as annual teaching and service audits, is warranted and needed (Hart, 2016).

It is the authors’ perspective that the burden of responsibility for reducing barriers and increasing support for women in tenure-track STEM faculty positions is on universities. However, it is likely that this will be a lengthy and on-going process of change. Until meaningful change occurs, it is evident from the current results that many women in these positions experience significant psychological distress as a result of their work experiences. Identifying supportive resources to enhance coping skills and reduce psychological distress on an individual level may be beneficial as systems work to implement meaningful change. For example, Michel and colleagues (2021) developed and implemented a 3-week mindfulness intervention and found that participants experienced reduced impact of work stress on family roles and more satisfaction with work–life balance compared to control group participants. While these interventions have not been evaluated with women in STEM or academia, it is possible that interventions targeting internal psychological skills have potential to reduce levels of distress experienced by women like those in the current study.

Limitations

There are several limitations of the current study. First, due to demographic characteristics of the sample and the use of qualitative data, generalizability of results is limited. For example, the majority of participants were White, heterosexual, and located in the Midwest. The experiences of participants in the current sample may differ in meaningful ways from the experiences of women of color and LGBTQ+ women. In addition, qualitative questions did not specifically ask about experiences of sexism. Thus, results regarding experiences of sexism and racism may have differed (e.g., been reported more frequently) if participants had been asked about them directly (Miller et al., 2015). Finally, given that the qualitative data analyzed were collected in a brief written format, it was impossible to follow up on unclear or vague responses to increase clarity.

Future Directions and Conclusion

Future research may benefit from examining experiences of sexism and racism among women of color faculty in STEM. While previous research has examined experiences of sexism and racism among women of color in STEM (Kachchaf et al., 2015), there is less literature examining these experiences for those at the tenure track level. This highlights a need to support women, particularly those with marginalized identities, in oppressive environments during critical periods of vocational development, as well as to examine women faculty of color from an intersectional lens (Liu et al., 2019). Additionally, given the current study’s finding of work–life balance as both a support and barrier, further examination of this area may help to elucidate ways in which interpersonal, departmental, and institutional approaches and initiatives may be implemented to promote such balance, thus preserving the careers of women faculty in STEM.

The current study contributes to the understanding of barriers and supports experienced by tenure-track STEM women faculty and aims to highlight the needed resources to help create equity in the career progression of women. The study also highlights a range of interventions at the university and departmental levels that are imperative to address the leaky pipeline of women in STEM academia.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Margo Gregor

Author Biographies

Margo Gregor, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Counseling Psychology Doctoral Program at the University of Akron. She graduated from the University of California-Riverside with her B.A. in Psychology and received her M.A. and Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from the University of Maryland-College Park. She is licensed as a psychologist in the state of Ohio (License #: P.07993). Dr Gregor’s research interests primarily focus on career development with a particular interest in the ways in which culture and social identities influence interests, choices, leadership, and educational, and vocational outcomes. For fun, Dr Gregor enjoys being in nature, reading, spending time with loved ones, and traveling. Dr Gregor can be reached at the Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, 290 East Buchtel Avenue, Akron, OH 44325; 330-972-6258; mgregor@uakron.edu.

Marianne G. Dunn, PhD is a licensed psychologist in New Jersey (license # 5656) and New York (license # 019544). She graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology and Spanish, and from The University of Maryland, College Park, with a Masters (MA) and Doctoral Degree (PhD) in Counseling Psychology. Her program of research has encompassed the work/life interface, coping, anxiety, depression, microaggressions, meaning in life, and other important psychological topics. She has held academic appointments at Teachers College, Columbia University, Towson University, and St. Elizabeth University, where she also directed the APA-accredited PsyD Program in Counseling Psychology. Dr Dunn currently maintains a private practice in New Jersey, where she specializes in anxiety and OCD. In her free time, she enjoys yoga, spending time with friends, cycling, and swimming. She can be reached at 645 Westwood Ave Suite 203, River Vale, NJ 07675; 201-994-9969. marianne@drmariannedunn.com.

Devynn Campbell-Halfaker, MA is a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio. She completed her Masters (MA) in Counseling Psychology at The University of Akron and her Bachelor’s (BS) in psychology at Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri. Devynn is currently a graduate assistant for the first- and second-year graduate practicum course at The University of Akron and has previously taught Introduction to Psychology and Developmental Psychology to undergraduate students. Her research interests include rural mental health, rural community and strengths, and rural culture and identity. She also serves on a research team studying the experiences of women in pre-tenure STEM faculty positions. In her free time, she enjoys hiking, sewing, gardening, baking, and spending time with her family, friends, and pets. Devynn can be reached at Department of Psychology, Arts and Sciences Building, 290 E. Buchtel Ave., Akron, OH 44325; 636-388-1344; dcc78@uakron.edu.

Javier Martin-Fernandez, EdM is a doctoral candidate pursuing his PhD in Counseling Psychology at the University of Akron. He completed a Bachelor’s in Psychology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and a Master’s in Counseling with a concentration in Sport Psychology at Boston University. Javier is anticipated to graduate with his Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from the University of Akron in August 2022. Javier’s research interests lie at the intersection of sport and performance psychology, masculinity, and multicultural issues, and focus on the exploration of how cultural factors, achievement contexts, and individual traits interact to shape one’s behaviors, adjustment, and mental health. He is currently serving as a predoctoral intern at Wake Forest University’s Counseling Center specializing in Sport and Performance Psychology, where he serves as a therapist and sport psychology consultant for Wake Forest University students and student-athletes. On his free time, Javier enjoys reading about history, hiking, riding his bicycle, spending time with his partner and dog, and exploring new areas and cuisines. Javier can be reached at 2671 Woodlore Trail, Winston-Salem, NC 27103; 704-258-2234; jm338@uakron.edu.

Anthony J. Ferrer, MA is a doctoral student in counseling psychology at Saint Elizabeth University in Morristown, New Jersey. He graduated from Montclair State University with a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology and certification in Child Advocacy and Policy, and from The College of Saint Elizabeth with a Masters (MA) in Counseling Psychology. Anthony serves as an adjunct professor at Saint Elizabeth University covering undergraduate-level research courses. His research interests include parenting practices, child and adolescent mental health, perception and deception, school/work/life balance, and applied sport psychology. Anthony currently serves as a predoctoral intern in a New Jersey public school district. Additionally, Anthony is currently working on his dissertation research focusing on fathering stress and fathering styles. Recreationally, he enjoys spending time with family and friends, practicing stage magic, watching movies, and powerlifting. Anthony can be reached at Saint Elizabeth University, 2 Convent Road, Morristown, NJ 07960; 201-661-0271. Aferrer@steu.edu.

Simone S. Robinson, MA is a doctoral student studying Counseling Psychology at Seton Hall University in South Orange, NJ. She completed a Bachelor’s in Psychology and a Master’s in Counseling Psychology at Saint Elizabeth University in Morristown, NJ. Simone currently serves in a research lab conducting studies on diverse low-SES middle school students’ self-beliefs and ethnic identity development and the impact of the dual pandemics on the perceived social support, psychological well-being, and individual value systems of international students of color during COVID-19. Her research interests include the exploration of mass and vicarious trauma, intersectional identities, academic success of first-generation college students, disparities affecting minority mental health in underrepresented populations, race-related mental health issues, and culturally informed practice. Simone is currently a pre-doctoral intern at Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, NJ. She serves in the neurology department where clients with chronic migraines, multiple sclerosis, and other neurological diagnoses are treated under an integrative healthcare model. In leisure, Simone enjoys hiking, swimming, playing tennis, listening to music and spending time with family and friends. Simone can be reached at 43 Cottage Street Apt 3D, South Orange, New Jersey 07079; 908-917-2927; robinss4@shu.edu.

References

Bartel

Ding

Eller

Iriarte-Gross

Petersen

(2017). A catalyst to ADVANCE the participation and advancement of women in academic STEM careers at middle Tennessee State University. Middle Tennessee State University: A qualitative report. https://www.mtsu.edu/faculty/wding/ADVANCE_White_Paper2017.pdf

Bilimoria

Joy

Liang

(2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20225

Casad

B. J.

Franks

J. E.

Garasky

C. E.

Kittleman

M. M.

Roesler

A. C.

Hall

D. Y.

Petzel

Z. W.

(2021). Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 99(1), 13–23. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1002/jnr.24631

Charleston

Adserias

Lang

Jackson

(2014). Intersectionality and STEM: The role of race and gender in the academic pursuits of African American women in STEM. Journal of Progressive Policy & Practice, 2(3), 273–293. https://caarpweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Charleston-Adserias-Lang-Jackson-2014.pdf

Cimpian

J. R.

Kim

T. H.

McDermott

Z. T.

(2020). Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM. Science, 368(6497), 1317–1319. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7377

Dasgupta

Stout

J. G.

(2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471

Denson

Szelényi

Bresonis

(2018). Correlates of work-life balance for faculty across racial/ethnic groups. Research in Higher Education, 59(2), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9464-0

Domingo

C. R.

Gerber

N. C.

Harris

Mamo

Pasion

S. G.

Rebanal

R. D.

Rosser

S. V.

(2020). More service or more advancement: Institutional barriers to academic success for women and women of color faculty at a large public comprehensive minority-serving state university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi-org.steu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/dhe0000292

Drew

E.,

Marshall

(2021). Work-life balance in academia: Myth or reality? In Drew

Canavan

(Eds.), The gender-sensitive university: A contradiction in terms? (pp. 52–66). Routledge.

10.

Dunham

C. C.

Weathers

L. H.

Hoo

Heintz

(2012). I just need someone who knows the ropes: Mentoring and female faculty in science and engineering. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 18(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2012002193

11.

Dunn

M. G.

Gregor

M. A.

Robinson

Ferrer

Campbell-Halfaker

Martin-Fernandez

J. P.

(2022). Academia during the time of COVID-19: Examining the voices of untenured female professors in STEM. Journal of Career Assessment, Article 106907272110574. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211057441

12.

Eren

(2022). Never the right time: maternity planning alongside a science career in academia. Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1858765

13.

Fouad

N. A.,

Santana

M. C.

(2017). SCCT and underrepresented populations in STEM fields: Moving the needle. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716658324

14.

Fox

M.F.

(2008). Institutional transformation and the advancement of women faculty: The case of academic science and engineering. In Smart

J. C.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6959-8_3

15.

Goulden

Mason

M. A.

Frasch

(2011). Keeping women in the science pipeline. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211416925

16.

Gregor

M.A.

Weigold

I. K.

Martin-Wagar

Campbell-Halfaker

(2021). Experiences of female assistant professors in STEM fields. Journal of Career Development. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211005032

17.

Gumpertz

Durodoye

Griffith

Wilson

(2017). Retention and promotion of women and underrepresented minority faculty in science and engineering at four large land grant institutions. Plos One, 12(11), Article e0187285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187285

18.

Hart

(2016). Dissecting a gendered organization: Implications for career trajectories for mid-career faculty women in STEM. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.11777416

19.

Haviland

Alleman

N. F.

Cliburn Allen

(2017). ‘Separate but not quite equal’: Collegiality experiences of full-time non-tenure-track faculty members. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(4), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272321

20.

Holmes

M. A.

O’connell

Frey

Ongley

(2008). Gender imbalance in US geoscience academia. Nature Geoscience, 1(2), 79–82. http://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo113

21.

Kabat-Farr

D.,

Cortina

L. M.

(2014). Sex-based harassment in employment: New insights into gender and context. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000045

22.

Kachchaf

Hodari

Ong

(2015). Career–life balance for women of color: Experiences in science and engineering academia. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(3), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039068

23.

Lent

R. W.

(2013). Social cognitive career theory. In Brown

Lent

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 115–146). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

24.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

25.

Levitt

H. M.

Bamberg

Creswell

J. W.

Frost

D. M.

Josselson

Suárez-Orozco

(2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151

26.

Liu

S.-N. C.

Brown

S. E. V.

Sabat

I. E.

(2019). Patching the “leaky pipeline”: Interventions for women of color faculty in STEM academia. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 7(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000062

27.

McCutcheon

J. M.,

Morrison

M. A.

(2018). It’s “like walking on broken glass”: Pan-Canadian reflections on work–family conflict from psychology women faculty and graduate students. Feminism & Psychology, 28(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517739641

28.

Michel

Groß

Hoppe

González‐Morales

M. G.

Steidle

O'Shea

(2021). Mindfulness and positive activities at work: Intervention effects on motivation‐related constructs, sleep quality, and fatigue. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 309–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12345

29.

Miller

M. J.

Lent

R. W.

Lim

R. H.

Hui

Martin

H. M.

Jezzi

M. M.

Bryan

N. A.

Morrison

M. A.

Smith

P. E.

Watford

Wilkins

Williams

(2015). Pursuing and adjusting to engineering majors: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714523084

30.

Moors

A. C.

Malley

J. E.

Stewart

A. J.

(2014). My family matters: Gender and perceived support for family commitments and satisfaction in academia among postdocs and faculty in STEMM and non-STEMM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(4), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314542343

31.

National Science Foundation (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/data-tables

32.

Riffle

Schneider

Hillard

Polander

Jackson

DesAutels

Wheatly

(2013). A mixed methods study of gender, STEM department climate, and workplace outcomes. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 19(3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2013005743

33.

Sorcinelli

M. D.,

Yun

(2010). From mentor to mentoring networks: Mentoring in the new academy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(6), 58–61. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.39.6.58-C4

34.

Spangler

P. T.

Liu

Hill

C. E.

(2012). Consensual qualitative research for simple qualitative data: An introduction to CQR-M. In Hill

C. E.

(Ed.), Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena (pp. 269–283). American Psychological Association.

35.

Toffoletti

K.,

Starr

(2016). Women academics and work–life balance: Gendered discourses of work and care. Gender, Work and Organization, 23(5), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12133

36.

Verret

L. B.

(2012). Factors affecting university STEM faculty job satisfaction (etd-01202012-195627). [Doctoral dissertation. Louisiana State University]. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2478

37.

Y. J.

(2008). Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 607–624. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9097-4

38.

Yang

Y. L.,

Carroll

D. W.

(2016). Understanding female STEM faculty experiences of subtle gender bias from microaggressions perspective. Paper presented at American Society of Engineering and Education 123rd Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, June, 2016.

39.

Ysseldyk

Greenaway

K. H.

Hassinger

Zutrauen

Lintz

Bhatia

M. P.

Frye

Starkenburg

Tai

(2019). A leak in the academic pipeline: Identity and health among postdoctoral women. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1297. https://doi-org.steu.idm.oclc.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01297