Gender and Race Differences in Faculty Assessment of Tenure Clarity: The Influence of Departmental Relationships and Practices

Abstract

The authors look at how the intersection of gender and race influences pretenure faculty members’ perceptions of the clarity of tenure expectations. The authors also seek to identify potential predictors (assessment of mentoring, relationships with peers, feedback on progress toward tenure, and of fairness in tenure decision making and evaluation) of perceptions of tenure clarity for four intersectionally defined groups, including historically underrepresented minority women (URMW). The authors use an intersectional perspective and the gendered and racialized organizations’ theoretical lens to interpret the results. The data set comes from the Harvard University Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education survey of tenure-track faculty job satisfaction (2011 and 2012). Bivariate results reveal no significant differences in URMW’s perceptions of tenure clarity compared with all other faculty members. However, findings show that compared with white men (WM), URMW are less satisfied with the relationships with peers and with the fairness in the evaluation of their work. Moreover, they are also less likely to agree that mentoring is effective, that tenure decisions are fair, and that messages about tenure are consistent. The multivariate results indicate that the proposed explanatory model does not explain URMW’s perceptions of clarity of tenure expectations as well as it explains white women’s and WM’s perceptions of clarity of tenure expectations.

Keywords

underrepresented minority women faculty clarity of tenure expectations higher education departmental practices departmental relationships

The U.S. Department of Education (2012) reports that women of color¹ account for only 10 percent of all assistant professors, 7 percent of associate professors, and a mere 3 percent of full professors. Although there are numerous reasons that both white women (WW) and women of color are less likely to enter or stay within the academy, lower rates of tenure for historically underrepresented minority women (URMW) in the professorate help explain their persistent underrepresentation at all faculty levels (Fries-Britt et al. 2011; Gasman, Kim, and Nguyen 2011; Kelly and Fetridge 2012). Intersectionality and gendered and racialized organization perspectives posit that gender and racial disparities are embedded within institutional culture, policies, and practices (Acker 2012; Britton and Logan 2008), which are inseparable from biases in the cultural norms and social practices that surround the “cognitive core” of science (Harding 2005). Because academia, as the bureaucratic institution of scientific practice, is dominated by informal ways of functioning (McGuire 2002; Ponjuan, Conley, and Trower 2011), gender and racial inequalities affect it on a deep cultural level, leading to exclusionary practices, an adverse climate, cultural gatekeeping, and the overall devaluation of faculty activities that are not defined as part of the “core” (Antonio 2002; Brown-Glaude 2010; Exum 1983; Maher and Tetreault 2007; Moore et al. 2010; Sondergaard 2005).

Although the gendering and racialization of the academy is not always easy to see, we do observe its tangible outcomes. For example, in comparison with their white male counterparts, WW and underrepresented minorities (URMs) are less likely to reach crucial academic milestones, such as tenure. Importantly, URMW are “less likely than either non-Hispanic WW or men of any racial group to be awarded tenure” (Leggon 2006:329). A large body of literature (Turner et al. 2008) relates this outcome to the specific situations experienced by WW and URMs, including extra service responsibilities (Diggs et al. 2009), teaching assignments (Moore et al. 2010), undervaluation of nonmainstream scholarship (Antonio 2002), and the lack of tenure clarity (Trower and Bleak 2004), among other factors. In a report using Harvard University Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) data, Trower and Bleak (2004) showed that compared with WW and men of color, women of color are less likely to perceive the tenure process and criteria as clear.² A more recent COACHE report (Benson and Mathews 2014) showed that among women, African Americans and American Indians/Native Alaskans are the least likely groups to know whether they will achieve tenure.

Yet to our knowledge, none of the quantitative studies of faculty perceptions of the clarity of tenure criteria (e.g., Fox 2015; Gormley and Kennerly 2010; Jackson, Latimer, and Stoiko 2017; Lawrence, Celis, and Ott 2014) used an intersectional lens. Intersectional URMW’s experiences with tenure and tenure processes have been documented in qualitative studies (e.g., Agathangelou and Ling 2002; Beloney-Morrison 2003) highlighting, among other things, how the narratives of institutional power that link merit to “objective standards of excellence” permeate tenure evaluations. Although these and other studies of gender and racial disparities (e.g., Griffin, Bennett, and Harris 2011; Griffin and Riddick 2011; Turner and González 2011) in the academy provide crucial information about issues faced by URMW, they do not account for URMW’s assessment of tenure clarity. Moreover, although much of faculty members’ day-to-day lives take place in academic departments, in which tenure and promotion criteria are defined and enforced (Lee and Leonard 2001), the literature does not address whether faculty perceptions of tenure clarity are related to departmental relationships and practices.

We address these gaps by developing explanatory models for URMW’s assessment of tenure clarity by focusing on faculty members’ perceptions of selected departmental relationships and practices. The research questions are as follows:

Research Question 1: How does the interaction between gender and race affect assessment of tenure clarity?

Research Question 2: To what extent do faculty members’ satisfaction with collegiality (relationships with peers, mentoring), assessment of feedback on tenure progress (performance reviews, fairness in tenure decisions and evaluation), and assessment of consistency of messages about tenure requirements affect perceptions of tenure clarity for each intersectionally defined group?

By answering these previously unexplored questions, this study contributes to extant literature in three ways. First, it provides an explanatory intersectional model for URMW’s assessment of tenure clarity. By comparing the explanatory model for URMW’s assessment of tenure clarity with the predictor models designed separately for underrepresented minority men (URMM), WW, and white men (WM), we identify whether the same factors affect perceptions of tenure clarity across all four groups in the same way.

Second, we assess whether the argument that gender and racial biases are embedded within institutional culture, policies, and practices (i.e., gendered and racialized organizations theory) is applicable to tenure processes. Findings that reveal significant differences along gender and racial lines in faculty assessment of tenure clarity and in the factors that influence clarity would support this theory.

Third, by examining URM faculty members’ perceptions regarding departmental relations and processes, including mentoring and interactions with colleagues, we add to the literature on disparities in academia, especially around retention efforts aimed at URM faculty members (e.g., Beloney-Morrison 2003; Jayakumar et al. 2009; Stanley 2006). In doing so, our study provides information about which groups have more restricted access to clarity of tenure criteria at the departmental level. Departments and universities can use this information to improve tenure clarity and equalize faculty access to information.

Theoretical Framework and Literature

Intersectionality and Gendered and Racialized Organizations

In recent years, organizational theorists have synthesized intersectionality and gendered organizations perspectives, leading to the development of a perspective that recognizes that organizational structures and processes are gendered and racialized and that workers have gender and race, and other social categories, as part of their identities (Acker 2011; Britton and Logan 2008). Originally stemming from black feminist arguments that their experiences cannot be understood as either the same as those of WW or as exclusively linked to race (Crenshaw 1989), intersectional scholarship has gone on to demonstrate that socially constructed hierarchies of advantage and disadvantage “mutually construct one another” and are linked among multiple and intersecting axes of inequality (Crenshaw 1989; Collins 2000; Hancock 2016). Intersectional theorists show that workplace inequalities cannot be understood simply by looking at individuals in jobs but are also linked to macro structural issues, including wage inequality (Browne and Misra 2003) as well as the organizational-level processes including discriminatory evaluations that produce unique advantages and disadvantages (Acker 2006; Choo and Ferree 2010; Morimoto et al. 2013). To understand a worker’s experience, therefore, hierarchical structures within organizations, workplace interactions, institutional culture, and institutional procedures must be analyzed (Acker 2011). For our purposes, we consider how the interaction between gender and race will create institutional barriers and experiences of exclusion for URMW that are different from those experienced either by URMM or by WW (Acker 2011).

According to Acker (1990, 2012), the “ideal worker” is signified not only as a man but most often a white, middle-class, heterosexual man. Thus, white female bodies, and black and brown bodies regardless of gender, are viewed as being incompatible with the “ideal worker.” Black and brown bodies, according to racialized organizational logic, are more suited for subservient, menial jobs (Acker 2011). The intersection between race and gender creates expectations that URMW should fill roles that conform to racialized and gendered stereotypes.

Therefore, the racialization and gendering of organizations creates barriers for men and women of color to advance in their careers (Acker 2011). Promotion is unfavorably influenced by the gender and race of both the evaluator and the evaluated, except in the case when a candidate is privileged by the dominant and unmarked classification of the white man (Acker 2006). For example, Ridgeway and Correll (2004) showed that gender and race are highly influential in determining a candidate’s competence and chances for advancement wherein “the same performance, idea, or product seems better . . . when it comes from someone who is higher status” (p. 518). Thus, gender and racial biases permeate the evaluation processes for career advancement, leading to expectations and criteria being used arbitrarily and disadvantaging URMW most of all (Acker 2011).

Evaluation in the workplace, however, is not just a single event but also informs and is informed by workplace interactions (Ridgeway and Correll 2004). Acker (2011) explained that workplace interactions are often guided by stereotypes and by the definition of the “other,” which distinguishes minorities as outside the social and professional workplace network. As such, URMW “others,” who are at risk for race/gender discrimination, experience the academic workplace differently than WW and URMM (Aguirre 2000). URMW face marginalization at higher rates than other faculty members, marginalization that, according to hooks (1990), means being “part of the whole but outside the main body” (p. 149).

URMW’s lack of integration into workplace culture and networks is not incidental; because of it, decision-making processes may be obscured to them. Therefore, from an intersectional perspective (Griffin and Museus 2011; Museus 2011; Pifer 2011; Zambrana et al. 2015), the intersection of racial/ethnic and gender identities should have an effect on faculty assessment of tenure clarity (Smooth 2016). In this study, in addition to ascertaining how the interaction between gender and race affects assessment of tenure clarity, we ask whether the same factors affect faculty perceptions of tenure clarity across intersectionally defined groups. To understand the influence that gender and race combined have on minority women’s experiences on the tenure track, the explanatory model for their assessment of tenure clarity is compared with the predictor models designed separately for URMM, WW, and WM.

Knowing Standards: Tenure Clarity, Standards, and Communication

Women of color are often invisible within their departments, excluded from departmental information circles, and thus “lack the institutional knowledge” that would help them become successful in their academic careers (Carlson 2008). Not having access to departmental informal networks and professional collaboration opportunities makes it difficult for minority women to understand the tenure process (Mitchell and Miller 2011). When they do interact with senior faculty members in the department, African American and Native American women report receiving less consistent messages about the requirements for tenure compared with WW and WM (Benson and Mathews 2014). URMW express that the administration’s expectations regarding performance for tenure are confusing and that the performance evaluations usually do not match the performance criteria in the formal tenure policies and procedures (Boyd, Cintrón, and Alexander-Snow 2010). Hence, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Compared with all other tenure-track faculty members, URMW are less likely to report that the expectations for tenure are clear.

Questions about the clarity of tenure standards are further confounded by how they are communicated. Not only is clarity key to meeting tenure expectations, but the communication of tenure standards is also critical. As universities have become more accountable, the tenure system questioned more often, and the tenure review more stringent, junior faculty members increasingly express that tenure “criteria and procedures require better definition and clearer communication” (Price and Cotten 2006:13). Social science research suggests that expectations are often communicated in an inconsistent and contradictory manner (Britton 2009; Roos and Gatta 2009), and URMW (Agathangelou and Ling 2002) are least likely to receive consistent messages. Hence, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 2: URMW’s assessment of messages received about the requirements for tenure has a significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity.

Moreover, stated criteria are not necessarily uniformly applied, and they tend to include obscured or unstated components. When it comes to tenure evaluations, URMW’s academic performance is scrutinized more stringently than that of WM and WW (Agathangelou and Ling 2002), and hidden tenure standards (i.e., standards that are not clearly and formally formulated nor applied to other faculty members) are applied to URMW’s performance (Agathangelou and Ling 2002; Beloney-Morrison 2003; Thomas and Hollenshead 2001). For example, at most research universities, a WM with a good research dossier can get tenure despite having less success in teaching and service. At the same universities, URMW have been denied tenure, despite exemplary research dossiers, on the grounds of “unsatisfactory” service performance (Agathangelou and Ling 2002). These allegations often stem from senior faculty members’ expectations that URMW should fulfill the role of the “diversity hire” by advising minority students and engaging in diversity activities related to race and gender, even though such activities seriously detract from research (Turner 2002). Likewise, to the extent that teaching, and teaching evaluations play a role in tenure, scholars also document that URM faculty are more likely to teach courses related to diversity (Moore et al. 2010) and receive lower course evaluations than WM, with URMW rated least favorably (Fries and McNinch 2003; Hamermesh and Parker 2005). Through these “unwritten rules” of tenure (Matthew 2016) and hidden service-related tenure expectations that apply only to URMs, the academy “double-binds any talented, non-mainstream faculty” and compels URMs, especially URMW, to behave according to the stereotypical image of the less competent scholars (Agathangelou and Ling 2002:378). We hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 3: URMW’s assessment of whether tenure decisions are based on performance has a significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity.

Research suggests that during the pretenure years, relationships with department chairs are especially important for tenure-track faculty members (Ambrose, Huston, and Norman 2005). In Ambrose et al.’s (2005) study, when they evaluated their experiences, pretenure faculty members consistently referred to who served as department chair. Faculty members defined good chairs in terms of fairness and consistency, among other things. Yet, Agathangelou and Ling (2002), for instance, noted that although department chairs tend to advise pretenure faculty members to say no to service commitments, they also urge them to act as “good, departmental citizens,” which includes serving on committees. Given the importance of chair’s formative evaluations and recommendations during the tenure review process, pretenure faculty members pay much attention to the fairness of department chairs (Williams and Williams 2006). Hence, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 4: URMW’s satisfaction level with the department head’s fairness in evaluating their work has a significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity.

Departmental Integration and Relationships with Peers

Success in achieving tenure also entails fitting in a department and cultivating a network of support. URMW faculty members feel like outsiders within the academy who are visible within their departments because of their racial/ethnic backgrounds rather than because of their professional capabilities (Medina and Luna 2000). URMW are frequently excluded from departmental professional networks and research collaboration opportunities with senior faculty members (Beloney-Morrison 2003). African American women feel the highest level of social isolation and report one of the highest levels of institutional isolation (i.e., they lack access to organizational sources of power; Smith and Calasanti 2005). When faculty members (both women and men) are satisfied with peer relationships, they tend to have a clearer understanding of their roles and the expectations for tenure (Ponjuan et al. 2011). We hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 5: URMW’s satisfaction with the amount of professional and personal interaction with tenured faculty members has significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity.

One way to facilitate positive interactions is through mentoring relationships. URMW faculty members are unlikely to receive mentoring in their departments, but they try to create support networks and mentoring relationships outside the department (Boyd et al. 2010), seeking mentoring opportunities within the ethnic section of professional associations (Thomas and Hollenshead 2001). Pointing out the lack of formal mentoring and individual mentoring relationships for URMW within departments at majority-white universities, social scientists recommend that these institutions facilitate opportunities for URMW junior faculty members to meet other URMW faculty members to develop mentoring relationships (Medina and Luna 2000; Turner 2002). When tenure-track faculty members (both men and women) consider the mentoring they receive to be effective, they also assess the expectations for getting tenure as clear (Lisnic, Zajicek, and Kerr 2017). Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 6: URMW’s assessment that there is effective mentoring of pretenure faculty members in the department has significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity.

Given the above discussion, and the fact that URMW faculty members are most likely to experience tenure expectations as vague (Britton and Logan 2008; Roth and Sonnert 2010), it is likely that URMW should benefit most from a more formalized process, which includes formal feedback regarding progress toward tenure (Kelly and McCann 2014; Jones, Hwang, and Bustamante 2015). We hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 7: Receiving formal feedback about progress toward tenure has significant influence on URMW’s perceptions of tenure clarity.

On the basis of the above discussion, we also hypothesize that for Hypotheses 2 through 7, compared with all other groups, URMW will report the least agreement and satisfaction with the variables included in our analysis.

Research Design

Sample and Study Participants

We use data from the Harvard University COACHE survey on tenure-track faculty job satisfaction. The survey has been administered on a large scale since 2005, collecting data from 200 institutions. For this study, we used a relatively recent 2011–2012 data slice and chose our sample using type of institution, tenure status, professorial rank, and race/ethnicity as the criteria. Because previous research (Jackson 2004) suggests that gender and racial inequalities are more pervasive within research universities, only Carnegie classification “very high research activity” and “high research activity” universities were included. Because of our research focus, only tenure-track faculty members who are members of historically underrepresented groups (American Indian/Native Alaskan, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino) are included; white faculty members are included as the comparison group.

Using these criteria, our final sample consists of 2,438 tenure-track assistant professors at 27 research universities; 2,128 (1,128 male and 1,000 female) are white, and 310 (134 male and 176 female) are URMs. There are 28 (12 male and 16 female) American Indian/Native Alaskan faculty members (1.1 percent of the total), 148 (56 male and 92 female) African American faculty members (6.1 percent of the total), and 134 (66 male and 68 female) Hispanic/Latino faculty members (5.5 percent).

Variables

A central question in this study is whether there are differences in faculty assessment of tenure clarity along gender and race/ethnicity. One of the COACHE survey questions in the dependent variable is: “Is what’s expected to earn tenure clear to you regarding your performance as a scholar?” Responses are measured on a Likert-type scale: 1 = “very unclear,” 2 = “somewhat unclear,” 3 = “neither clear nor unclear,” 4 = “somewhat clear,” and 5 = “very clear.” “Not applicable” and “decline to answer” options are also available. Because scholar, teacher, and adviser or mentor to students are the main roles of a tenure-track assistant professor, this study focuses on these three roles. The dependent variable in our regression analyses is a composite of three questions that has a reliability coefficient of .76 (with a range of 1–13): “Is what’s expected in order to earn tenure clear to you regarding your performance as a scholar?” “Is what’s expected in order to earn tenure clear to you regarding your performance as teacher?” and “Is what’s expected in order to earn tenure clear to you regarding your performance as an advisor to students?” See Table 1 for variable descriptions.

Table 1.

Variables.

Variable	Item Content Description	Mean	SD	α
Dependent variable
Clarity of tenure expectations	Composite variable created from three variables; range = 3–15, recoded as 1–13	8.75	2.94	.76
Clarity as a scholar	Clarity of tenure expectations as a scholar
Clarity as a teacher	Clarity of tenure expectations as a teacher
Clarity as an adviser to students	Clarity of tenure expectations as an adviser to students
Independent demographic variables
Gender	Female and male
Race	White and URM
Gender × Race	URMM, URMW, WM, and WW
Other independent variables
Messages, fairness, and evaluation
Consistent messages on tenure	Agreement that the messages about the requirements for tenure received from tenured faculty members are consistent
Tenure decision based on performance	Agreement that tenure decisions are based primarily on performance-based criteria rather than on non-performance-based criteria
Satisfaction with fair evaluation	Satisfaction with department head’s fairness in evaluating work
Received formal feedback on tenure progress	Yes/no
Mentoring	Composite variable created from two variables; range = 2–6	4.54	1.62	.81
Effective mentoring of faculty members	Agreement that there is effective mentoring of pretenure faculty members in the department
Effectiveness of mentoring within department	Effectiveness of mentoring from someone within the department
Relations with peers	Composite variable created from two variables; range = 2–6	4.93	1.41	.82
Satisfaction with interaction: tenured: professional	Satisfaction with the amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty members
Satisfaction with interaction: tenured: personal	Satisfaction with the amount of personal interaction with tenured faculty members

Note: URM = underrepresented minority; URMM = underrepresented minority men; URMW = underrepresented minority women; WM = white men; WW = white women.

Two demographic variables, gender (female and male) and race (white and URM) are included as the grouping variables of most interest. Because of small numbers, the historically URMs—American Indian/Native Alaskan, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino—and white (non-Hispanic) were collapsed to form a dichotomous variable (URM and white). Furthermore, race and gender were combined to form a single grouping variable with four categories: URMW, URMM, WW, and WM.

Other independent variables are included as well, including variables that concern agreement level with the following statements: “I have received consistent messages from tenured faculty about the requirements for tenure” and “In my opinion, tenure decisions here are made primarily on performance-based criteria (e.g., research/creative work, teaching, and/or service) rather than on non-performance-based criteria (e.g., politics, relationships, and/or demographics).” To maintain a minimum cell size of greater than five observations, the five categories in the independent categorical variables were collapsed into three categories. Faculty members’ satisfaction with “My department head’s or chair’s fairness in evaluating my work” and faculty members’ “Having received feedback on progress towards tenure” are also among the independent variables.

Other independent variables concern faculty members’ perceptions of mentoring. Specifically, two survey items measuring the effectiveness of mentoring (i.e., “There is effective mentoring of pre-tenure faculty in my department [agreement level]” and whether “Mentoring from someone in your department” is effective) were combined into one variable (range = 2–6, coefficient of reliability = .81) for multivariate analyses.

We also included relationships with peers variables that measure the level of satisfaction with “The amount of professional interaction you have with tenured faculty in your department” and “The amount of personal interaction you have with tenured faculty in your department.” In the multivariate analyses, these variables were combined into one variable (satisfaction with interactions with tenured faculty members) that has a reliability coefficient of .82.

Methods of Data Analysis

One purpose of this study is to find out how URMW faculty members compare with all other faculty groups (URMM, WW, and WM) in terms of their assessment of tenure clarity. To this end we use Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The Kruskal-Wallis test is a nonparametric test used to identify differences, if any, that exist when comparing between more than two groups. The test compares group distribution patterns to test if at least one group distribution pattern varies from other groups (Weinberg and Knapp Abramowitz 2002:549). The Mann-Whitney test identifies differences between paired groups when the variables being tested are ordinal and the samples are unequal in size (Acock 2012).

We also use these two tests to identify group differences in faculty members’ perceptions regarding the following variables: messages about requirements for tenure, fairness of tenure decisions and evaluation, relationships with peers, and mentoring. Excluding relationship with peers, these variables have previously been found (Lisnic et al. 2017) to be significant predictors of tenure clarity. We first apply the Kruskal-Wallis test to identify differences in perceptions among the four faculty groups. Following this, Mann-Whitney tests were run on variables for which the Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant group differences.

Another goal of this study is to create an explanatory model for URMW faculty members’ assessment of tenure clarity. To understand the influence gender and race combined have on URMW’s tenure-track experiences, we have created models to reveal whether the same factors predict perceptions of tenure clarity for the intersectionally defined groups (URMW, URMM, WW, and WM). We wanted to determine whether the parameter estimates are significant and to identify the direction of each estimate. Thus, separate regression models were tested for the four groups and included independent variables suggested by existing research to be significant (Lisnic et al. 2017). The dependent variable is a continuous variable, so ordinary least squares regression analysis was appropriate. Posttests such as collinearity and error term determine the best fit and validity of the model (Berry 1993). In what follows, we first discuss our bivariate results, followed by a presentation of the multivariate results.

Findings

Bivariate Results

The bivariate analyses answer our first research question—How does the intersection between gender and race affect assessment of tenure clarity?—and address our hypotheses concerning gender and race differences in faculty members’ assessment of other factors included in our analysis. Below we discuss the results of the Mann-Whitney test (see Table 2), which includes only the variables for which the Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant group differences. Because neither the variable “received formal feedback on tenure progress” nor the variable “effectiveness of mentoring within department” showed significant group differences, these variables were excluded from the Mann-Whitney test.

Table 2.

Mann-Whitney Test Comparison for Variables by Faculty Groups (Gender and Race).

Variable	(WM)/WW	(WM)/URMM	(WM)/URMW	(WW)/URMM	(WW)/URMW	(URMM)/URMW
Clarity
Clarity as a scholar	−2.201*	1.144	.359	2.113*	1.459	−.655
Clarity as a teacher	−2.552**	1.469	−.145	2.519*	1.196	−1.325
Clarity as an adviser to students	−3.062**	−.922	−1.646	.479	−.121	−.444
Messages, fairness, evaluation
Consistent messages on tenure	−3.092**	.395	−2.344*	1.812	−.597	−1.925
Tenure decision based on performance	−3.477***	−.652	−2.161*	.935	−.232	−.928
Satisfaction with fair evaluation	−4.765***	−.705	−3.271***	1.492	−.571	−1.608
Mentoring, peer relationships
Effective mentoring of faculty	−3.054**	−.247	−2.062*	1.201	−.408	−1.257
Satisfaction with interaction: tenured: professional	−3.144***	−.531	−4.1***	.973	−2.196*	−2.37*
Satisfaction with interaction: tenured: personal	−3.618***	−2.923**	−3.631***	−1.063	−1.623	−.355

Note: The groups in parentheses are the comparison groups.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As seen in Table 2, WW differ significantly from WM in their assessment of tenure clarity regarding performance as a scholar, a teacher, and an adviser, and they differ significantly from URMM in their assessment of tenure clarity regarding performance as a scholar and teacher. Thus, WW perceive significantly less clarity than WM or URMM. These results contradict our first hypothesis that, compared with all other tenure-track faculty members, URMW are less likely to report that tenure expectations are clear, and they reveal that WW are the group least likely to report that tenure expectations are clear.

Regarding the consistency of messages, tenure decisions based on performance, and satisfaction with fair evaluation, our results contradict our hypotheses that URMW would rate these factors least favorably. The results show that both WW and URMW rate these variables significantly less favorably than WM, which is not the case for the URMM. Furthermore, URMW do not rate these factors less favorably than WW or URMM.

Other bivariate results also contradict our hypotheses that URMW would rate effectiveness of mentoring and the amount of personal interactions with tenured faculty members least favorably. Specifically, compared with WM, WW and URMW are less likely to agree that there is effective formal mentoring and, along with URMM, less likely to be satisfied with the amount of personal interactions with tenured faculty members. The findings, however, confirm our hypothesis that URMW are least satisfied with the amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty.

Multivariate Results

The multivariate results answer our second research question concerning predictors of tenure clarity and whether these predictors differ across intersectionally defined groups. Separate regression models were tested for each of the four groups (see Table 3). Each group’s model consists of six independent variables plus the dependent variable. The F tests for all groups are significant. Diagnostics do not indicate multicollinearity.

Table 3.

Ordinary Least Squares Coefficients for Determinants of Tenure Clarity by Race and Gender.

	URM Faculty Members		White Faculty Members
Variable	Female	Male	Female	Male
Consistent messages on tenure	1.468*** (.282)	1.006** (.363)	.789*** (.102)	1.15*** (.103)
Tenure decision based on performance	.313 (.332)	.107 (.387)	.902*** (.121)	.526*** (.130)
Satisfaction with fair evaluation	.982** (.375)	.847 (.554)	.65*** (.141)	.489** (.160)
Effectiveness of mentoring	.358* (.166)	.222 (.198)	.134* (.059)	.18** (.058)
Satisfaction with interaction with tenured faculty	.043 (.175)	.196 (.231)	.1505* (.065)	.15* (.070)
Received formal feedback on tenure progress	1.216* (.503)	1.204* (.580)	.515* (.215)	.466* (.198)
Constant	1.577 (.989)	3.322* (1.66)	3.552*** (.434)	3.786*** (.443)
F	20.99***	7.52***	68.92***	79.92***
df	6	6	6	6
Number of observations	115	93	718	828
Adjusted R²	.5127	.2984	.3624	.3641

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

p < .05. **p < .01. and ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

The second hypothesis, that URMW’s assessment of received messages about the requirements for tenure has a significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity, is supported by the results showing that for URMW as well as for the other three groups, this relationship is significant and positive.

The third hypothesis, that URMW’s assessment of tenure decisions as based on performance has a significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity, is not supported by our results. Importantly, assessment of tenure decisions as based on performance is positive and significant for WM and WW, but not for URMM.

The fourth hypothesis, that URMW’s satisfaction with the department head’s fairness in evaluating their work has a significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity, is supported. Moreover, we find positive and significant effect of this variable for WM and WW, but not for URMM.

The fifth hypothesis, that URMW’s assessment of the effectiveness of mentoring of pretenure faculty members in the department has significant influence on their perceptions of clarity of tenure expectations, is supported, showing significant and positive relationships for URMW, WW, and WM. However, we note a gender difference within the URM group: for URMM, mentoring does not result in significant changes in tenure clarity.

The sixth hypothesis, that URMW’s satisfaction with the amount of professional and personal interaction with tenured faculty members has a significant influence on their perceptions of tenure clarity, is not supported. In this case, we note that the effect is positive and significant only for white faculty members.

The final hypothesis, that receiving formal feedback about progress toward tenure has significant influence on URMW’s perceptions of tenure clarity, is supported, revealing positive and significant effects on URMW as well as on all other groups.

Discussion

In this study, we examine how URMW compare with all other faculty members in terms of perceptions of tenure clarity. We also address a literature gap by exploring whether the factors previously identified as predictors of tenure clarity (Lisnic et al. 2017) are significant in models designed separately for URMW, URMM, WW, and WM. Although gendered and racialized organization theory (Acker 2011) and extant research (Smooth 2016) suggested that minority women and men would perceive less clarity in tenure expectations, our results suggest otherwise. However, the analysis, including the bivariate results, does reveal differences among the intersectionally defined groups suggesting that the gendered and racialized organizations perspective is central to understanding organizational discrimination through direct and indirect means by demonstrating how systems of oppression differently position URMW (Collins 2000; Crenshaw 1989). At the same time, our analysis also suggests some additional complexity in how gender and racial biases are embedded within institutional culture, policies, and practices.

For instance, contrary to existing research (Agathangelou and Ling 2002; Beloney-Morrison 2003), the results reveal that WW are least likely to perceive tenure expectations as clear. The finding that URM faculty members do not show lower levels of clarity of tenure expectations than WM introduces intersectional complexity to this line of research, begging the question of whether URM faculty members either are not aware of these unwritten expectations or assume that the unwritten and written expectations for getting tenure are the same. This is likely related to the institutional masking of the informal aspects of decision making with written policies and procedures that have the appearance of objectivity via “sound academic judgment of excellence” (Agathangelou and Ling 2002; Matthew 2016). Because, as our results show, URM faculty members may not have satisfactory professional and personal interactions with tenured faculty members who are the conduit for communicating the informal expectations, the URM faculty members may proceed with the assumption that their vision is complete: “they do not know what they do not know” (Moore 2017).

Consistent with previous research, compared with WM, URMW are less likely to agree that they have received consistent messages about tenure requirements (Benson and Mathews 2014), are less likely to agree that tenure decisions are made on the basis of performance criteria (Agathangelou and Ling 2002; Thomas and Hollenshead 2001), are less satisfied with their department chair’s fairness in work evaluation (Boyd et al. 2010), and are less likely to agree that there is effective mentoring in their department (Boyd et al. 2010). WW also reported lower levels of agreement and satisfaction with the aforementioned practices, corroborating the findings of Lisnic et al. (2017) that women are less satisfied than men with the departmental practices that influence tenure clarity. Also, in line with existing research (Smith and Calasanti 2005), we find that URMW are the least likely group to be satisfied with the amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty members.

Regarding the factors that influence URMW’s perceptions of tenure clarity, we find that four of six factors positively influence URMW’s perceptions of tenure clarity: consistent messages about tenure, assessment of department head’s fairness, receiving formal feedback on progress toward tenure, and effectiveness of mentoring. This finding provides partial support for gendered and racialized organization theory (Acker 2011) and existing literature focusing on URMW (Agathangelou and Ling 2002; Beloney-Morrison 2003).

Regarding whether the same factors affect faculty members’ perceptions across the four intersectional groups, we find that, for all four groups, perceptions of tenure clarity are positively influenced by receiving consistent messages about tenure expectations and receiving formal feedback on progress toward tenure. These results suggest that improvements in departmental practices that address the consistency of messages and the requirement of formal feedback on progress toward tenure can benefit all faculty members, regardless of gender and race.

However, the results also show differences across the four groups regarding other independent variables. First, we find that white faculty members who agree that tenure decisions are made on the basis of performance criteria and who are more satisfied with the amount of professional and personal interactions with tenured faculty members are more likely to report that the expectations for getting tenure are clear. URMW and URMM, on the other hand, do not experience a significant change in their assessment of how clear tenure expectations are, regardless of their view of whether tenure decisions are tied to performance, and regardless of their satisfaction level with the interactions with tenured faculty.

This implies that URMW and URMM may actually perceive the performance criteria for research, teaching, and service as not clear in the first place. If that is the case, the fact that tenure is linked to performance criteria does not make tenure expectations any clearer. As other studies suggest, given the diversity of scholarship, the assumptions about what constitutes excellent performance (i.e., contributions, a “valid” area of research, or publications in the “best” journal; Jayakumar et al. 2009; Johnsrud and Sadao 1998) are not necessarily credible from URMs’ viewpoint. Regarding professional and personal interactions with tenured faculty members, their “insignificance” could be explained by not having enough access to tenured faculty members, which is what our bivariate analysis suggests (i.e., URMs are less satisfied than WM with the amount of interactions with tenured faculty members). However, it is also possible that for URM faculty members, the issue lies not only in the number of interactions but also in their quality. URMs’ interactions with tenured faculty members, which are most likely to be WM, may be superficial, awkward, and characterized by underlying tensions (Griffin et al. 2011; Medina and Luna 2000). Such interactions are not likely to produce a greater clarity of tenure expectations. Thus, departmental efforts to increase interactions between junior faculty members and tenured faculty members may benefit white faculty members but not URMs. Similarly, if URM faculty members are not confident in the performance criteria, explicitly linking tenure to performance will not necessarily address the issue of tenure clarity for URMs.

Relatedly, our findings reveal that for URMM, neither assessment of mentoring effectiveness nor satisfaction with the department head’s fairness has a significant effect on clarity of tenure expectations. Earlier research on mentoring suggests that the cross-race mentoring within the department does not always provide adequate support for URM faculty members in general (Diggs et al. 2009; Stanley 2006; Tillman 2001). Earlier research also suggests that for pretenure faculty members, the department head’s fairness matters (Williams and Williams 2006). Given that these two factors are significant for URMW, these findings cannot be attributed to race only; we must ask why this gender difference exists among URM faculty members. One possible explanation as to why for URMW faculty members, but not for URMM faculty members, understanding the expectations for getting tenure is affected by the department head’s fairness, is provided by qualitative research on black female and male faculty members (Griffin et al. 2011; Griffin and Reddick 2011), indicating that their experiences of “subtle discrimination” in their departments are different. Black men describe “a feeling of suspicion surrounding them at all times” and talk about “feeling as if someone is always watching them, resulting in the need to be constantly on guard (Griffin et al. 2011:56). In contrast, black women’s experiences are characterized by more overt instances of having their abilities questioned (Griffin et al. 2011:56). It is possible that having experienced more overt questioning, black women attach more meaning to whether the department head is fair. These inconsistencies between our study and earlier research as well as the overall lack of studies exploring gender differences within specific URM groups (Griffin and Reddick 2011) calls for more race/gender-sensitive studies.

In all, our multivariate models predict better white faculty members’ assessment of clarity of tenure expectations than they do URMW’s and, especially, URMM’s perceptions of tenure clarity. Although we do not observe gender differences among white faculty members, gender differences exist among URM faculty members, pointing to complexities of institutional contexts structured by raced and gendered social inequalities.

Policy Implications and Conclusions

The results of this study inform higher education policy by showing disparities in faculty members’ assessments of selected departmental relationships and practices with regard to understanding tenure expectations. The study suggests that gendered and racialized organization theory assumptions that gender and racial biases are embedded within institutions (Acker 2012; Britton and Logan 2008) are applicable to tenure processes, affecting issues surrounding clarity of tenure expectations and the overall success of URM faculty members. The study also indicates that “one size fits all” approaches to URM faculty retention (Jayakumar 2009; Stanley 2006) may not necessarily benefit all URM faculty members the same way. Below we address the main policy implications of our study.

First, at many universities, programs are implemented to improve the retention of URM faculty members. At Colorado State University, for example, a program called New Beginnings “provides a formal mechanism to raise the level of awareness of junior faculty of color relative to tips and suggestions, thereby leveling the playing field in the tenure and promotion process” (Alire 2001:24). Most often, however, diversity plans are designed by diversity councils with the purpose of “advancing and influencing policy for building diverse, inclusive campus communities” (Iverson 2007:587). Although such initiatives could help acclimate URM faculty members to the campus community, when it comes to URM faculty members’ understanding the tenure criteria and expectations, such programs fall short. Tenure criteria and expectations are a product of individual departments (Lee and Leonard 2001), and thus faculty development initiatives and mentoring outside the department may do little to help faculty members understand the criteria and expectations for tenure. Our findings, however, go deeper than that.

Ideally, the tenure process would be uninfluenced by departmental politics and decision makers’ biases, and the most decisive factors in understanding the tenure criteria and tenure expectations (which should match) would be receiving formal feedback on progress toward tenure and formal mentoring (Jones et al. 2015). Although annual evaluations and third-year reviews are a common practice at research universities, the extent to which junior faculty members receive formal feedback on an ongoing basis varies across departments (Jones et al. 2015). Regarding formal mentoring, its value for tenure clarity and its availability across academic units may vary (Diggs et al. 2009). For instance, formal mentoring may not be very helpful in the units in which departmental politics and biases, including “additional scripts and roles” (Agathangelou and Ling 2002), are a big factor in who gets tenured (Lee and Leonard 2001; Stanley 2006). It appears that in such situations, informal mentoring may lead to better career outcomes (Raggins and Cotton 1999). When formal mentoring is not available, casual interactions with tenured faculty members could provide information about the unwritten scripts (Mitchell and Miller 2011). Importantly, it appears that interactions with peers may not be effective enough to render the tenure expectations clear for URM faculty members, who also appear to have different needs on the basis of gender.

Specifically, because formal mentoring may benefit URMW, but not URMM, and a change in the number of interactions with tenured faculty members does not appear to benefit URM faculty members in general, we recommend that institutional and departmental efforts should also focus on creating alternatives to reliance on interactional socialization of URMs and formal mentoring programs within departments. Such alternatives might include creating internal departmental documents discussing tenure expectations. Such documents should be based on input from all faculty members to create consensus around central expectations and principles. It is possible that just having such departmental-level conversation would help URMM and URMW understand departmental dynamics and politics that give rise to the existence of the “hidden” tenure expectations (Matthew 2016; Price and Cotten 2006). Other alternatives include assigning multiple mentors, cohort-based peer mentoring, and workshops articulating differences between tenure criteria and expectations (Britton 2009; Roos and Gatta 2009).

Our findings also reveal that tenure decision makers’ biases, the department head’s fairness in evaluating faculty work, and the messages regarding the requirements for tenure received from tenured faculty members have significant influence on WW’s, WM’s, and URMW’s perceptions of clarity of tenure expectations.

Thus, to improve all faculty members’ understanding of tenure clarity, we recommend that universities and departments put effort into making the tenure decisions and evaluations unbiased, by making decision makers and evaluators accountable. University leadership could encourage and hold all concerned parties accountable for the formulation and articulation of clear and detailed criteria for getting tenure at departmental, college, and university levels (Bird 2011) and ensuring that this information is available to all junior faculty. Doing so would also entail having evaluations on tenure progress and tenure decisions match formal criteria (Boyd et al. 2010). Furthermore, academic institutions should address issues of unconscious bias in an effort to prevent the use of standards and expectations that are not part of the formalized criteria in evaluations and tenure decisions (Benard, Paik, and Correll 2007).

We cannot forget, though, that for the URM faculty members, tenure clarity is not affected by their perceptions of whether tenure decision is based on performance. This implies that initiatives to retain URM faculty members should not be limited to changes in organizational policies, procedures, and practices; it should also entail the creation of more inclusive standards for assessing overall faculty contributions and evaluating academic scholarship (Exum 1983, Jayakumar et al. 2009). This can be achieved only after acknowledgment that academic performance standards are gendered and racialized to favor WM and, to some extent, WW as well (Acker 2006; Choo and Ferree 2010; Morimoto et al. 2013). Overall, the findings in this study reveal the need for profound changes in departmental culture that would diminish the extent to which junior URMW and URMM are particularly likely to be victims of the vagaries of an ambiguous tenure process.

Limitations and Future Studies

The limitations of the COACHE data, including the institutional settings in which the data are collected, affect our ability to provide a more in-depth explanation of our findings or to provide more definite recommendations for changes. Because universities enroll in COACHE by paying a significant fee, this skews the sample toward the more affluent schools and affects sample size and the random selection of participants. Moreover, using a secondary data set restricted by the nature of COACHE survey limits our ability to use questions specifically designed to measure clarity of tenure expectations. Also, the data set in this study is cross-sectional, and hence causality cannot be inferred. Yet despite the limitations of the survey, the general insight regarding gender and race differences in factors related to tenure expectation clarity is important to the directions of future research, which should continue to further explore intersectional differences among faculty members regarding both which groups are least likely to perceive tenure expectations as clear and the factors that affect their perceptions.

Another limitation is that because of limited sample size, URM faculty members in this study were aggregated into one group. However, the experiences of African American faculty members compared with Latino/a faculty members and with Native American faculty members are not necessarily the same. Moreover, as we noted in the methods section, we did not include Asians and Pacific Islanders among the URM faculty members. Also, because of insufficient numbers of Asian and Pacific Islander faculty members, we were not able to conduct a separate analysis for this group. Future research should include this group and examine each group of faculty members of color separately while also including gender.

On the basis of our findings, further investigation into predictors and interpretations of differences in perceptions of clarity of tenure expectations for URMW and URMM is warranted. Mixed-methods sequential approaches are especially desirable if we want to strengthen interpretations of the findings (Griffin et al. 2011). Finally, because of small numbers of URM faculty members, we were not able to introduce other important variables (e.g., discipline, years in profession) to provide a more nuanced account of the results. Future studies of tenure-track faculty members would benefit from including data on discipline and tenure stage, both of which could have significant effects on faculty members’ perceptions of tenure clarity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback, which helped improve the quality of this article. We also thank Dr. Brinck Kerr for his insightful comments and advice on earlier versions of this article. We acknowledge that the reported results are based in whole on analyses of the COACHE data set. These data were collected as part of a multisite survey administration and supported by funds from participating colleges and universities and made available to the authors by COACHE. This article has not been reviewed or endorsed by COACHE and does not necessarily represent the opinions of COACHE staff or members, who are not responsible for the contents.

Notes

Author Biographies

Rodica Lisnic is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Her research is concerned with issues related to gender and race inequalities, policies, and practices in the context of higher education institutions.

Anna Zajicek is a professor of sociology and department chair in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Her scholarship has been devoted to the intersectionality of social inequalities, institutional transformation, problem definition, and target populations.

Shauna Morimoto is associate professor of sociology and vice chair in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. She publishes on the structuring effects of race, class, and gender on democratic participation and organizational processes.

References

Acker

Joan

. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4(2):139–58.

Acker

Joan

. 2006. “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations.” Gender & Society 20(4):441–64.

Acker

Joan

. 2011. “Theorizing Gender, Race, and Class in Organizations.” Pp. 65–80 in Handbook of Gender, Work, and Organization, edited by Jeanes

E. L.

Knights

Martin

P. Y.

Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Acker

Joan

. 2012. “Gendered Organizations and Intersectionality: Problems and Possibilities.” Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal 31(3):214–24.

Acock

Alan C.

2012. A Gentle Introduction to Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Agathangelou

Anna M.

Ling.

L.H.M.

2002. “An Unten(ur)able Position: The Politics of Teaching for Women of Color in the US.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 4(3):368–98.

Aguirre

Adalberto

Jr.

2000. “Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace.” ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 6. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Alire

Camila A.

2001. “The New Beginnings Program: A Retention Program for Junior Faculty of Color.” Journal of Library Administration 33(1–2):21–30.

Ambrose

Susan

Huston

Therese

Norman

Marie

. 2005. “A Qualitative Method for Assessing Faculty Satisfaction.” Research in Higher Education 46(7):803–30.

10.

Antonio

Anthony Lising

. 2002. “Faculty of Color Reconsidered: Reassessing Contributions to Scholarship.” Journal of Higher Education 73(5):582–602.

11.

Beloney-Morrison

Tonetta

. 2003. “Your Blues Ain’t Like Mine: Exploring the Promotion and Tenure Process of African American Female Professors at Select Research I Universities in the South.” PhD dissertation, Department of Educational Leadership, Research and Counseling, Louisiana State University.

12.

Benard

Stephen

Paik

Correll

Shelley J.

2007. “Cognitive Bias and the Motherhood Penalty.” Hastings Law Journal 59:1359–87.

13.

Benson

R. Todd

Mathews

Kiernan R.

2014. “COACHE Summary Tables: Selected Dimensions in Faculty Workplace Climate by Discipline, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

14.

Berry

William D.

1993. Understanding Regression Assumptions. Vol. 92. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Bird

Sharon. R.

2011. “Unsettling Universities’ Incongruous, Gendered Bureaucratic Structures: A Case Study Approach.” Gender, Work & Organization 18(2):202–230.

16.

Bow

Leslie

. 2016. “Difference without Grievance: Asian Americans as the Almost Minority.” Pp. 88–100 in Written/Unwritten: Diversity and the Hidden Truths of Tenure, edited by Matthew

P. A.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

17.

Boyd

Tammy

Cintrón

Rosa

Alexander-Snow

Mia

. 2010. “The Experience of Being a Junior Minority Female Faculty Member.” Forum on Public Policy Online. Retrieved January 24, 2018 (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ903575.pdf).

18.

Britton

Dana M.

2009. “Engendering the University through Policy and Practice: Barriers to Promotion to Full Professor for Women in the STEM Disciplines.” Presented at the Conference on Gender Change in Academia: Re-mapping the Fields of Work, Knowledge, and Politics from a Gender Perspective, February 13–15, Goettingen, Germany.

19.

Britton

Dana M.

Logan

Laura

. 2008. “Gendered Organizations: Progress and Prospects.” Sociology Compass 2(1):107–21.

20.

Browne

Irene

Misra

Joya

. 2003. “The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labor Market.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:487–513.

21.

Brown-Glaude

Winnifred R.

2010. “But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women Faculty Transforming the Academy.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 35(4):801–809.

22.

Carlson

Julie A.

2008. “If I Had Only Known: Challenges Experienced by Women New to the Professoriate.” Advancing Women in Leadership 28:2.

23.

Choo

Hae Yeon

Ferree

Myra Marx

. 2010. “Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities.” Sociological Theory 28(2):129–49.

24.

Collins

Patricia Hill

. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Rev. 10th Anniv. Ed. New York: Routledge.

25.

Crenshaw

Kimberlé Williams

. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989(1):139–67.

26.

Diggs

Gregory A.

Garrison-Wade

Dorothy F.

Estrada

Diane

Galindo

Rene

. 2009. “Smiling Faces and Colored Spaces: The Experiences of Faculty of Color Pursuing Tenure in the Academy.” Urban Review 4(4):312–33.

27.

Exum

William. H.

1983. “Climbing the Crystal Stair: Values, Affirmative Action, and Minority Faculty.” Social Problems 30(4):383–99.

28.

Fox

Mary Frank

. 2015. “Gender and Clarity of Evaluation among Academic Scientists in Research Universities.” Science, Technology & Human Values 40(4):487–515.

29.

Fries

Christopher J.

McNinch.

R. James

2003. “Signed versus Unsigned Student Evaluations in Teaching: A Comparison.” Teaching Sociology 31(3):333–44.

30.

Fries-Britt

Sharon L.

Rowan-Kenyon

Heather T.

Perna

Laura W.

Milem

Jeffrey F.

Howard

Danette Gerald

. 2011. “Underrepresentation in the Academy and the Institutional Climate for Faculty Diversity.” Journal of the Professoriate 5(1):1–34.

31.

Gasman

Marybeth

Kim

Jessica

Nguyen

Thai-Huy

. 2011. “Effectively Recruiting Faculty of Color at Highly Selective Institutions: A School of Education Case Study.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 4(4):212–22.

32.

Gormley

Denise K.

Kennerly

Susan

. 2010. “Influence of Work Role and Perceptions of Climate on Faculty Organizational Commitment.” Journal of Professional Nursing 26(2):108–15.

33.

Griffin

Kimberly A.

Bennett

Jessica C.

Harris

Jessica

. 2011. “Analyzing Gender Differences in Black Faculty Marginalization through a Sequential Mixed-methods Design.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2011(151):45–61.

34.

Griffin

Kimberly A.

Museus.

Samuel D.

2011. “Application of Mixed-methods Approaches to Higher Education and Intersectional Analyses.” New Directions for Institutional Research 15(1):15–26.

35.

Griffin

Kimberly A.

Reddick

Richard J.

2011. “Surveillance and Sacrifice: Gender Differences in the Mentoring Patterns of Black Professors at Predominantly White Research Universities.” American Educational Research Journal 48(5):1032–57.

36.

Hamermesh

Daniel S.

Parker.

Amy M.

2005. “Beauty in the Classroom: Instructors’ Pulchritude and Putative Pedagogical Productivity.” Economics of Education Review 24(4):369–76.

37.

Hancock

Ange-Marie

. 2016. Intersectionality: An Intellectual History. New York: Oxford University Press.

38.

Harding

Sandra

. 2005. “Science and Technology.” Pp. 241–54 in A Companion to Gender Studies, edited by Essed

Goldberg

D. T.

Kobayashi

Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

39.

hooks

bell

. 1990. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End.

40.

Iverson

Susan VanDeventer

. 2007. “Camouflaging Power and Privilege: A Critical Race Analysis of University Diversity Policies.” Educational Administration Quarterly 43(5):586–611.

41.

Jackson

Judy

. 2004. “The Story Is Not in the Numbers: Academic Socialization and Diversifying Faculty.” NWSA Journal 16(1):172–85.

42.

Jackson

J. Kasi

Latimer

Melissa

Stoiko

Rachel

. 2017. “The Dynamic between Knowledge Production and Faculty Evaluation: Perceptions of the Promotion and Tenure Process across Disciplines.” Innovative Higher Education 42(3):193–205.

43.

Jayakumar

Uma M.

Howard

Tyrone C.

Allen

Walter R.

Han.

June C.

2009. “Racial Privilege in the Professoriate: An Exploration of Campus Climate, Retention, and Satisfaction.” Journal of Higher Education 80(5):538–63.

44.

Johnsrud

Linda K.

Sadao

Kathleen C.

1998. “The Common Experience of ‘Otherness’: Ethnic and Racial Minority Faculty.” Review of Higher Education 21(4):315–42.

45.

Jones

Brandolyn

Hwang

Eunjin

Bustamante.

Rebecca M.

2015. “African American Female Professors’ Strategies for Successful Attainment of Tenure and Promotion at Predominately White Institutions: It Can Happen.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 10(2):133–51.

46.

Kelly

Bridget Turner

Fetridge.

Jessica S.

2012. “The Role of Students in the Experience of Women Faculty on the Tenure Track.” NASPA Journal about Women in Higher Education 5(1):22–45.

47.

Kelly

Bridget Turner

McCann

Kristin I.

2014. “Women Faculty of Color: Stories behind the Statistics.” Urban Review 46(4):681–702.

48.

Lawrence

Janet H.

Celis

Sergio

Ott

Molly

. 2014. “Is the Tenure Process Fair? What Faculty Think.” Journal of Higher Education 85(2):155–92.

49.

Lee

Laura J.

Leonard

Curtis A.

2001. “Violence in Predominantly White Institutions of Higher Education: Tenure and Victim Blaming.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 4(2–3):167–86.

50.

Leggon

Cheryl B.

2006. “Women in Science: Racial and Ethnic Differences and the Differences They Make.” Journal of Technology Transfer 31(3):325–33.

51.

Lisnic

Rodica

Zajicek

Anna

Kerr.

Brinck

2017. “Faculty Assessment of Clarity of Tenure Expectations: Does Gender Matter?” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 2017, Montreal, Canada.

52.

Maher

Frances A.

Tetreault

Mary Kay Thompson

. 2007. Privilege and Diversity in the Academy. New York: Routledge.

53.

Matthew

Patricia A.

2016. “It’s Not Just Us. This Is Happening Everywhere: On CVs and the Michigan Women.” Pp. 12–21 in Written/Unwritten: Diversity and the Hidden Truths of Tenure, edited by Matthew

P. A.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

54.

McGuire

Gail M.

2002. “Gender, Race, and the Shadow Structure a Study of Informal Networks and Inequality in a Work Organization.” Gender & Society 16(3):303–22.

55.

Medina

Catherine

Luna

Gaye

. 2000. “Narratives from Latina Professors in Higher Education.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 31(1):47–66.

56.

Mitchell

Natasha A.

Miller

Jaronda J.

2011. “The Unwritten Rules of the Academy: A Balancing Act for Women of Color.” Diversity in Higher Education 10:193–218.

57.

Moore

Helen A.

Acosta

Katherine

Perry

Gary

Edwards

Crystal

. 2010. “Splitting the Academy: The Emotions of Intersectionality at Work.” Sociological Quarterly 51(2):179–204.

58.

Moore

Mignon

. 2017. “Women of Color in the Academy: Navigating Multiple Intersections and Multiple Hierarchies.” Social Problems 64(2):200–205.

59.

Morimoto

Shauna A.

Zajicek

Anna M.

Hunt

Valerie H.

Lisnic

Rodica

. 2013. “Beyond Binders Full of Women: NSF ADVANCE and Initiatives for Institutional Transformation.” Sociological Spectrum 33(5):397–415.

60.

Museus

Samuel. D.

2011. “An Introductory Mixed-methods Intersectionality Analysis of College Access and Equity: An Examination of First-generation Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.” New Directions for Institutional Research 15(1):63–75.

61.

Pifer

Meghan J.

2011. “Intersectionality in Context: A Mixed-methods Approach to Researching the Faculty Experience.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2011(151):27–44.

62.

Ponjuan

Luis

Conley

Valerie Martin

Trower

Cathy

. 2011. “Career Stage Differences in Pre–Tenure Track Faculty Perceptions of Professional and Personal Relationships with Colleagues.” Journal of Higher Education 82(3):319–46.

63.

Price

Jammie

Cotten.

Shelia R.

2006. “Teaching, Research, and Service: Expectations of Assistant Professors.” American Sociologist 37(1):5–21.

64.

Raggins

Belle Rose

Cotton

John L.

1999. “Mentor Functions and Outcomes: A Comparison of Men and Women in Formal and Informal Mentoring Relationships.” Journal of Applied Psychology 84(4):529–50.

65.

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

Correll

Shelley

. 2004. “Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations.” Gender & Society 18(4):510–31.

66.

Roos

Patricia A.

Gatta.

Mary L.

2009. “Gender (In)equity in the Academy: Subtle Mechanisms and the Production of Inequality.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 27(3):177–200.

67.

Roth

Wendy D.

Sonnert

Gerhard

. 2010. “The Costs and Benefits of ‘Red Tape’: Anti-bureaucratic Structure and Gender Inequity in a Science Research Organization.” Social Studies of Science 41(3):385–409.

68.

Smith

Janice Witt

Calasanti

Toni

. 2005. “The Influences of Gender, Race and Ethnicity on Workplace Experiences of Institutional and Social Isolation: An Exploratory Study of University Faculty.” Sociological Spectrum 25(3):307–34.

69.

Smooth

Wendy G.

2016. “Intersectionality and Women’s Advancement in the Discipline and Across the Academy.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 4(3):513–28.

70.

Sondergaard

Dorte Marie

. 2005. “Making Sense of Gender, Age, Power and Disciplinary Position: Intersecting Discourses in the Academy.” Feminism & Psychology 15(2):189–208.

71.

Stanley

Christine A.

2006. “Coloring the Academic Landscape: Faculty of Color Breaking the Silence in Predominantly White Colleges and Universities.” American Educational Research Journal 43(4):701–36.

72.

Thomas

Gloria D.

Hollenshead

Carol

. 2001. “Resisting from the Margins: The Coping Strategies of Black Women and Other Women of Color Faculty Members at a Research University.” Journal of Negro Education 70(3):166–75.

73.

Tillman

Linda C.

2001. “Mentoring African American Faculty in Predominantly White Institutions.” Research in Higher Education 42(3):295–325.

74.

Trower

Cathy A.

Bleak.

Jared L.

2004. “Study of New Scholars.” Gender: Statistical Report [Universities]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

75.

Turner

Caroline Sotello Viernes

. 2002. “Women of Color in Academe: Living with Multiple Marginality.” Journal of Higher Education 73(1):74–93.

76.

Turner

Caroline Sotello Viernes

González

Juan Carlos

. 2011. “Faculty Women of Color: The Critical Nexus of Race and Gender.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 4(4):199–211.

77.

Turner

Caroline Sotello Viernes

González

Juan Carlos

Wood

J. Luke

. 2008. “Faculty of Color in Academe: What 20 Years of Literature Tells Us.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 1(3):139–68.

78.

U.S. Department of Education. 2012. “Full-time Instructional Faculty in Degree-granting Institutions, by Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Academic Rank: Fall 2007, Fall 2009, and Fall 2011.” Retrieved August 25, 2017 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_291.asp).

79.

Weinberg

Sharon Lawner

Abramowitz

Sarah Knapp

. 2002. Data Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Using SPSS. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

80.

Williams

Brian N.

Williams.

Sheneka M.

2006. “Perceptions of African American Male Junior Faculty on Promotion and Tenure: Implications for Community Building and Social Capital.” Teachers College Record 108(2):287–315.

81.

Zambrana

Ruth E.

Ray

Reshawn

Espino

Michell M.

Castro

Corinne

Douthirt

Beth Cohen

Eliason

Jennifer

. 2015. “‘Don’t Leave Us Behind’: The Importance of Mentoring for Underrepresented Minority Faculty.” American Educational Research Journal 52(1):40–72.