The Presence and Participation of Women in Academic Science and Engineering: 1973–1995

  • J. Scott Long
Part of the Innovations in Science Education and Technology book series (ISET, volume 15)


The legal revolution highlighted by the quote from historian Margaret Rossiter grew out of the resurgence of the women’s movement in the late 1960s and dramatic changes in our society’s view of the role of women at home and in the workplace. The effects of these changes are reflected in the rapid and remarkable inereases in the presenee and participation of women in academic science and engineering since the early 1970s, changes that are documented in this paper. Our approach is to follow the pipeline, from receipt of degree, to entry into the labor force, to recruitment into the academic sector, and then through the academic ranks. The full participation of women in the academic sector is eritieal because it is within academia that future generations of scientists and engineers are trained. Moreover, we give special attention to scientists and engineers working in Research I universities and medical schools. Not only do these locations provide the majority of doetoral and postdoctoral training, but they are also the most conducive organizational contexts for a prestigious research career. For women to have an equal standing with men in science and engineering, it is essential that they gain parity within the most prestigious academic locations (see the Introduction to the current volume for further discussion).


Labor Force Full Professor Academic Rank Tenure Track Woman Scientist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahern, Nancy C., and Elizabeth L. Scott. 1981. Career outcomes in a matched sample of men and women Ph.D.s: An anayltical report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, Paul D., and J. Scott Long. 1990. Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review 55:469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Astin, Helen S., and Aan E. Bayer. 1979. Pervasive gender differences in the Academic reward system: Scholarship, marriage and what else? In Academic rewards in higher education, ed. D. R. Lewis and W. E. Becker. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, Leslie A. 1995. U.S. women in science and engineering, 1960–1990: Progress toward equity? Journal of Higher Education 66(2): 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1994. A classification of institutions of higher education: A technical report. Berkeley: The Carnegie Commission.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, Jonathan R. 1979. Fair science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. -, and Harriet Zuckerman. 1984. The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication among men and women Scientists. In Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 2, ed. P. Maehr and M. W. Steinkamp. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Goldberger, Marvin L., Brendan A. Maher, and Pamela Ebert Flattau. 1995. Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Haley-Oliphant, Ann E. 1985. International perspectives on the status and role of women in science. In Women in science: A report from the field, ed. J. B. Kahle. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hargens, Lowell, and J. S. Long. Forthcoming, Demographic inertia and the representation of women and minorities on higher-education faculties. Journal of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  11. Hurlbert, Jeanne, and Rachel A. Rosenfeld, 1992. Getting a good job: Rank and institutional prestige in Academic psychologists’ careers. Sociology of Education 65:188–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, Lyle V., Gardner Lindzey, and Porter E. Coggeshall. 1982. An assessment of research doctorate programs in the United States, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Press.Google Scholar
  14. -, ed. 2001. From scarcity to visibility: A study of gender differences in the careers of doctoral Scientists and engineers. Report of the panel for the study of gender differences in the career outcomes of science and engineering Ph.D.s. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. -, Paul D. Allison, and Robert McGinnis. 1993. Rank advancement in Academic careers: Gender differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological Review 58:703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McIlwee, Judith Samsom, and J. Gregg Robinson. 1992. Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture, Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  17. NSF (National Science Foundation). 1920–1995. Survey of Earned Doctorates, Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  18. -. 1973–1995. Survey of Doctorate Recipients, Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. -. 1997. Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1995, Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies.Google Scholar
  20. -. 2000. Tabulations from data from Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Completion Survey; and NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates.Google Scholar
  21. Perrucci, Robert, Kathleen O’Flaherty, and Harvey Marshall. 1983. Market conditions, productivity, and promotion among university faculty. Research in Higher Education 19:431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reskin, Barbara F. 1978. Scientific productivity, sex, and location in the institution of science. American Journal of Sociology 83:1235–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenfeld, Rachel A., and Jo Ann Jones. 1986. Institutional mobility among Academics. Sociology of Education 59:212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenfeld, Rachel A., and Jo Ann Jones. 1987. Patterns and effects of geographic mobility for Academic women and men. Journal of Higher Education 58:493–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  26. -. 1995. Women Scientists in America: Before affirmative action 1940–1972, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  27. Shyrock, Henry S., Jacob S. Siegel, and associates. 1973. The methods and materials of demography, vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  28. Solomon, Barbara Miller. 1985. In the company of educated women. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sonnert, Gerhard. 1990. Careers of Women and Men Postdoctoral Fellows in the Sciences. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings.Google Scholar
  30. Szafran, Robert F. 1984. Universities and women faculty: Why some organizations discriminate more than others, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  31. Xie, Yu, and Kimberlee A. Shauman. 1998. Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review 63:847–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zuckerman, Harriet. 1987. Persistence and change in the careers of men and women Scientists and engineers. In Women: Their under-representation and career differentials in science and engineering, ed. L. S. Dix. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. -, and Jonathan R. Cole. 1975. Women in American science. Minerva 13:82–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Scott Long

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations