Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43, No.

4, August 2002 ( 2002)

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY: Exploring the Role of Gender and Family-Related Factors
Linda J. Sax, Linda Serra Hagedorn, Marisol Arredondo, and Frank A. Dicrisi III

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
This study explores the role of several family-related factors in faculty research productivity for a large, nationally representative sample of university faculty members. The role of marriage, children, and aging parents is examined after controlling for other personal and environmental factors, such as age, rank, department, and intrinsic motivations to conduct research, that previous research has shown to influence research productivity. Analyses are conducted on a sample of 8,544 full-time teaching faculty (2,384 women and 6,160 men) at 57 universities nationwide. Results show that factors affecting faculty research productivity are nearly identical for men and women, and family-related variables, such as having dependent children, exhibit little or no effects on research productivity.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
KEY WORDS: faculty; research productivity; family-related factors.

INTRODUCTION Despite recent and significant gains made by academic women, they comprise only one third of faculty nationwide and remain underrepresented in the more prestigious institutions and at the higher faculty ranks. Further, the careers of academic men and women frequently differ, with women being more likely than men to devote time to teaching and advising, serve in part-time positions, and teach in fields unlike the ones in which they were trained (Collins, 1998). These distinctions, often viewed as inequities, are further exacerbated by the fact that artinya:

Meskipun kenaikan baru-baru dan signifikan yang dibuat oleh perempuan akademik, mereka terdiri dari fakultas nasional dan tetap kurang terwakili di lebih bergengsi lembaga dan pada jajaran fakultas yang lebih tinggi. Selanjutnya, karir pria akademik dan wanita sering berbeda, dengan wanita menjadi lebih mungkin dibandingkan laki-laki untuk mencurahkan waktu untuk mengajar dan menasihati, melayani di paruh waktu posisi, dan mengajar di bidang seperti orang-orang di mana mereka dilatih (Collins, 1998). ini perbedaan, sering dipandang sebagai ketidakadilan, lebih diperburuk oleh kenyataan bahwa

Linda J. Sax is Associate Professor-in-Residence at the University of California Los Angeles. Linda Serra Hagedorn is Associate Professor at the University of Southern California. Marisol Arredondo is Director of Institutional Research at Chapman University. Frank A. DiCrisi III is a doctoral student at the University of California Los Angeles. Address correspondence to: Linda J. Sax, Higher Education Research Institute, 3039 Moore Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521; lsax@ucla.edu.

423
0361-0365/02/0800-0423/0 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

424

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

women faculty spend significantly more time than their male counterparts do on household and childcare responsibilities (Gmelch, Wilke, and Lovrich, 1986). Thus, female faculty face substantial challenges in their pursuit of jobs, tenure, and promotion. Further, these multiple challenges also serve to detract from womens overall satisfaction with their chosen academic career (Hagedorn and Sax, 1999). How do these inequities impact faculty womens ability to develop and sustain a productive scholarly agenda? How do womens publication rates compare to those of men? How do women balance time-consuming family responsibilities with the heavy demands of an academic career? The present study addresses these questions through an examination of how research productivity is influenced by faculty gender, professional involvement, and commitments to the home and family. BACKGROUND During the past few decades, considerable attention has been devoted to the topic of faculty research productivity. Such attention is warranted since productivity is often used as an index of departmental and institutional prestige and is strongly associated with an individual faculty members reputation, visibility, and advancement in the academic reward structure (Creamer, 1998, p. iii). Indeed, for many faculty, the sheer number of publications is far more influential in shaping ones career trajectory than is the quality of the research conducted. Studies on research productivity generally reveal that women publish less than men (Astin, 1969; Bellas and Toutkoushian, 1999; Creamer, 1998; Hamovitch and Morgenstern, 1977; Sax, Astin, Korn, and Gilmartin, 1999), although there has been some convergence of the gender gap over time (Ward & Grant, 1996). In an attempt to understand these differences, many researchers have focused on family-related variables (Creamer, 1995, 1998; Hamovitch and Morgenstern, 1977) such as being married (Astin, 1969, 1978; Astin and Davis, 1985; Hamovitch and Morgenstern, 1977), the number of children in the household (Astin, 1978; Hamovitch and Morgenstern, 1977), and having a spouse who is an academic (Creamer, 1995). Family-related factors have been used as the object of inquiry in previous studies (as well as in this study) primarily due to the potential time conflicts that arise between family and career responsibilities. Previous research has centered on family responsibilities traditionally imposed on female professors and the effect these have on their ability to be highly productive (Hamovitch and Morgenstern, 1977). Family responsibilities continue to remain a central focus of research on faculty productivity in light of the large number of young, mostly female professors who choose to postpone decisions about marriage and childrearing until after they receive tenure (Bassara,

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

425

1979; Finkel and Olswang, 1994). Finkel and Olswang and Cole and Zuckerman (1987) have found that more women than men decide to leave academe or choose nontenure track positions because of family responsibilities. Moreover, given that early career decisions (i.e., tenure) usually occur during the time span coinciding with early childrearing, and later career decisions (i.e., promotions through the ranks) may coincide with elder-care, it is important to assess the effects of family responsibilities over an entire career. Nevertheless, research on the role of family-related factors in research productivity has produced mixed results. For example, while some studies have found that being married (Astin, 1969) and having children (Astin, 1969, 1978) is negatively related to productivity for women, others (Hamovitch and Morgenstern, 1977) found no such influence for either women or men. Moreover, in a review of more than 20 years of research on faculty productivity, Creamer (1998) found only two articles that showed a significant negative relationship between marriage and productivity, five articles that reported a nonsignificant relationship, and three that found a significant positive relationship between marriage and publishing productivity. Similarly, Creamer also reported inconsistent findings on the relationship between children and publishing productivity. Clearly, such inconclusive results warrant a closer look at the role of familyrelated variables in research productivity. The family-related factor that has received the lowest level of attention is the care of elderly parents or other relatives. National statistics on how many faculty are responsible for the care of elderly family members is not routinely collected, but we do know that the need for eldercare is growing rapidly (Herndon, 1995) and that stress resulting from eldercare has grown significantly among faculty over the past decade (Sax et al., 1999). Moreover, the growth of the proportion of the population over the age of 65 has greatly exceeded that of the country in general (Hobbs, 1999; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1995). OBJECTIVES The present research explores the role of several family-related factors on a measure of research productivity for a large, nationally representative sample of college and university faculty members. The role of factors such as marriage, children, and aging parents is examined after controlling for other personal and environmental factors that previous research has shown to influence research productivity, such as age (Astin, 1978; Astin and Davis, 1985; Bayer and Dutton, 1977; Bentley and Blackburn, 1990; Lawrence and Blackburn, 1988), rank (Astin, 1978; Astin and Davis, 1985; Bellas and Toutkoushian, 1999), institutional type and control (Astin, 1978; Astin and Davis, 1985; Bellas and Toutkoushian, 1999; Crane, 1965; Fulton and Trow, 1974; Golden and Carstensen, 1992; Meador, Walters, and Jordan, 1992), department (Astin, 1969, 1978; Ful-

426

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

ton and Trow, 1974; Hamovitch and Morgenstern, 1977), instrinsic motivations to conduct research (Blackburn, Bieber, Lawrence, and Trauvetter, 1991), and job stress. We posit two primary research questions: Do marriage, children, aging parents, and other family-related factors influence faculty research productivity? Is the nature of family-related factors dependent on gender or tenure status? METHODOLOGY Sample Our data were drawn from the 19981999 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey, a national survey of college and university faculty. A four-page survey instrument was distributed to 128,423 faculty at 429 higher education institutions in the fall of 1998. After a second wave follow-up to nonrespondents, responses were received from 55,081 faculty, constituting a 43 percent response rate. In order to approximate as closely as possible the results that would have been obtained if all college and university teaching faculty in all institutions had responded to the survey, a multistage weighting procedure was employed to correct for nonresponse bias that is dependent on gender, rank, or institution.1 Our descriptive statistics and regression analyses were conducted using these weighted data. The analytical sample used in this study consists of the responses of 8,544 full-time university teaching faculty at 57 universities nationwide (2,384 women and 6,160 men). Variables The dependent variable, research productivity, is defined as the number of professional writings published or accepted for publication in the last 2 years preceding the survey. The focus only on publications during the last 2 years is intended to distinguish between faculty who are currently productive from those who have been less productive in the recent past (even if such faculty were highly productive early in their careers). According to Creamer (1998), this definition is the most commonly used measure of research productivity and is particularly important when examining the role of family responsibilities, as the nature and extent of marital and parental responsibilities change significantly over time. The model is composed of five blocks of independent variables. The first block includes the demographic characteristics of age and race. The second block includes institutional selectivity and control. The third block includes professional variables such as academic rank, salary, research orientation, and job

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

427

stress. Block four includes disciplinary fields organized according to similar characteristics (Appendix C) as described by Biglans classification scheme. Consequently, field of academic appointment is classified into three paradigmatic dimensions: hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife (Biglan, 1973; Stoecker, 1993). Finally, block five includes a set of family-related factors, such as marital status, dependent child status, home stress, financial stress, stress resulting from care of an elderly parent, and hours per week spent on childcare or household duties. (See Appendix A for a complete list of variables and coding.) Analyses First, trends in gender differences in research productivity were examined by comparing the 19981999 results with the results of earlier administrations of this survey conducted in 19721973 (Bayer, 1973) and 19891990 (Astin, Korn, and Dey, 1991). Next, crosstabulations examine current gender differences in research productivity by marital status and dependent child status. After listwise deletion of missing cases, regression analyses were conducted separately for the male (n 6,160) and female (n 2,384) samples. Finding a significant interaction in the female sample by tenure/nontenure status, we divided the female sample into tenured (n 1,137) and nontenured (n 1,247) women faculty. Similarly, after finding a significant interaction in the male sample by tenure/nontenure status,2 we also divided the male sample into tenured (n 4,231) and nontenured (n 1,929) male faculty. The process of dissecting the sample by gender and tenure status provided a clearer picture of the constituents of faculty research productivity. In addition, the data were examined for multicollinearity by setting a minimum tolerance level at .30. Tolerance levels show the extent to which independent variables are linearly related to one another (multicollinear), with higher tolerances being more acceptable (see Appendix B). Final analyses consisted of comparing the standardized regression weights (beta weights) within each equation to ascertain the most important components of research productivity within each sample. For example, a ranking of the beta weights within the equation for men reveals the relative importance of each of the independent variables for the male sample. To determine if the standardized regression coefficients were statistically different from each other, t tests were performed between all samples for any variable that was statistically significant in the regression analysis. Limitations Although the dependent variable used in this study is a widely accepted indicator of faculty research productivity, it has important limitations that should be clarified. First, it represents a self-reported measure of published (or accepted)

428

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

professional writings. Since the survey offers no further explanation of what constitutes a professional writing, faculty definitions are sure to vary. We suspect that responses to this question would be influenced by an item that appears two questions prior to the professional writings variable used in this article. That item asks respondents to indicate how many of each the following they have published: articles in academic or professional journals; chapters in edited volumes; and books, manuals, or monographs. It is reasonable to assume that respondents may be influenced by this list when answering the subsequent professional writings question, which is the focus of this study. Second, the accuracy of faculty responses will depend on the extent to which they can recall their number of published writings. Some faculty may glance at their resumes to determine the number; others will merely estimate. Fortunately, the range of survey response options is finer at the low end of the scale (i.e., 0, 12, 34) where the majority of faculty report their productivity level (faculty with few publications probably do not need to consult their resumes for an accurate count), and larger at the high end of the scale (i.e., 1120, 2150, 50; highly productive faculty would not need precise recall of their number of publications). A third important limitation is that the dependent variable emphasizes the quantity of publications, without regard to quality. Because of the increasing number and diversity of publication outlets (particularly in an age of online publishing) as well as significant variations in the rigor of review processes, research quality surely spans a broad spectrum. Further, disciplinary customs vary: books may reign supreme in some fields, while journal articles may be paramount in others. Nevertheless, data on research quality would be almost impossible to collect for a faculty sample this large. RESULTS Table 1 displays rates of 2-year research productivity for men and women faculty at all types of institutions in 19721973, 19891990, and 19981999. It is quite clear that over the past 3 decades, research productivity has increased among both men and women faculty. Simply put, significantly fewer faculty are producing zero publications over a 2-year period, while many more are publishing three, four, or even five or more articles. At the same time, the gender gap in research productivity has narrowed considerably, at least at the lower productivity levels. The gender gap among nonpublishing faculty, as well as the gap among those publishing three to four articles, has been cut in half. The gender gap in publishing one to two articles has virtually disappeared. Despite these relative and absolute gains made by women faculty, the gender gap remains unchanged among highly productive faculty (those producing five or more publications within a 2-year period).

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

429

TABLE 1. Gender Differences in Research Productivity Over Time (all institutions)a Percent Among Women

Academic Year Publications in the last two years None 12 34 5

a

Percent Among Men

Gender Gap (percent)

72 73 89 90 98 99 72 73 89 90 98 99 72 73 89 90 98 99

73.8 17.6 5.3 3.3

57.3 23.9 11.4 7.4

48.6 27.0 15.6 8.8

53.2 23.6 12.3 10.9

42.1 25.6 17.1 15.2

38.1 26.4 18.8 16.6

20.6 6.0 7.0 7.6

15.2 1.7 5.7 7.8

10.5 0.6 3.2 7.8

Rsults for 19721973 drawn from Bayer (1973). Results from 19891919 computed from the 19891990 HERI Faculty Survey database.

An analysis of trends restricted to faculty at research universities reveals similar results (see Table 2). While the overall level of productivity is higher among women and men at research universities than among faculty at all institutions, the substantial gender gap remains, particularly among highly productive faculty. However, the current gender gap among nonpublishing faculty is smaller in the university sample (5.8%) than in the overall sample (10.5%). Further, among faculty at research universities, women are more likely than men to have published between one and four articles over the past 2 years. Therefore, while
TABLE 2. Gender Differences in Research Productivity Over Time (research universities only)a Percent Among Women

Academic Year Publications in the last two years None 12 34 5

a

Percent Among Men

Gender Gap (percent)

72 73 89 90 98 99 72 73 89 90 98 99 72 73 89 90 98 99

60.9 24.8 8.2 6.0

29.5 30.0 22.3 18.3

22.5 28.7 28.8 20.0

32.6 27.8 20.3 19.4

19.9 25.7 26.2 28.2

16.7 24.7 27.5 31.1

28.3 3.0 12.1 13.4

9.6 5.8 4.3 4.0 1.3 3.9 9.9 11.1

Results for 19721973 drawn from Bayer (1973). Results from 19891990 computed from the 19891990 HERI Faculty Survey database.

430

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

longstanding gender differences among prolific faculty persist, women at research universities are making considerable progress among the vast majority of faculty who produce less than five articles in 2-year period. Table 3 examines research productivity among women and men as it relates to marital status3 and dependent-child status. Results by marital status indicate that while marital status appears to be unrelated to womens level of research productivity, being married or with a partner is associated with higher publication rates for men. With respect to facultys role as parents, we find that women with dependent children exhibit lower levels of research productivity than women without dependent children. Among men, however, having dependent children is associated with greater research productivity. These results are intriguing, but cannot be adequately interpreted without controls for faculty age, rank, discipline, and several other potentially mediating factors. Accordingly, we describe further analyses below. Research Productivity Equations Table 4 provides the block-by-block incremental R2 change for each of the tested samples. Nearly every block in each of the samples explained a significant proportion of the variance in research productivity at the p .001 level. Professional variables (e.g., rank, salary, research orientation) were by far the largest contributors to research productivity, followed distantly by institutional selectivity and control. The independent contribution of family-related factors was extremely small, suggesting that once key demographic, institutional, and professional variables have been controlled, family-related factors have little influence on faculty research productivity. The total proportion of the variance explained in the dependent variable, research productivity, ranged from a low of 33.7 percent among nontenured men to a high of 40.7 percent among tenured men. Table 5 provides both the standardized (beta) and unstandardized (b) regression weights for the four final samples. Results that have reached at least the .05 level of significance are noted. Table 5 also reports the results of the t tests that were conducted between all samples for all significant variables. In the demographics block, age is a relatively strong negative predictor, indicating that younger faculty tend to be more productive. While these findings may reflect heightened pressures and/or motivations early in the faculty career, the effects of age are significant despite controls for academic rank (see below). It is possible that high levels of productivity among younger faculty reflect the fact that these faculty members have been socialized (in graduate school and in their present careers) at a time when a premium is placed on the quantity of publications. The data in Table 1 provide clear evidence of this phenomenon. Among measures of race/ethnicity, the only variable shown to have a slight

TABLE3.ResearchProductivitybySex,MaritalStatus,andDependentChildStatus Women Married Unmarried Married Unmarried Dependents No Dependents Men Women Men Dependents No Dependents

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

MaritalStatus

Publicationsinthe lasttwoyears None 14 510 11 18.8 59.7 18.6 2.9 20.9 59.6 18.6 .9 13.9 52.9 25.6 7.6 18.8 56.6 19.3 5.4 18.9 60.6 17.9 2.6

19.6 59.2 19.0 2.1

11.6 52.2 27.3 8.8

16.3 54.0 23.2 6.5

431

432

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

TABLE 4. R2 Change by Block R2 Change and Test of F Change Women Divided by Tenure Status Block 1. Demographics 2. Institutional selectivity and control 3. Professional Variables 4. Department 5. Family-related factors Total Model R2
*p .05; **p .01; ***p .001.

Men Divided by Tenure Status Tenured .050*** .032*** .315*** .007*** .003* .407 Nontenured .007* .014*** .304*** .008*** .007ns .340

Tenured .021*** .032*** .268*** .009** .008ns .337

Nontenured .020*** .005* .328*** .005* .008ns .367

(negative) effect for any of the four samples is being African American, and only for nontenured women. The trivial effects of race are surprising given earlier work showing race to have modest but significant effects on research productivity (Astin, 1978; Bellas and Toutkoushian, 1999). Among institutional characteristics, being employed at a public institution is a significant positive predictor of research productivity for tenured faculty, both women and men. Among professional variables, not surprisingly, the strongest predictor of research productivity is ones orientation toward research. This variable, defined by facultys level of interest in research as well as time spent conducting research, was significant for all groups. The positive effects of salary are also significant for all groups, although it is likely the case that higher levels of research productivity lead to higher salaries rather than result from them. Also significant for most groups (excluding tenured women) is the effect of rank, with faculty at higher ranks reporting higher levels of research productivity. One of the more unexpected findings was the positive effect of commitment to students personal development on the research productivity of untenured men and women faculty. This result was not anticipated because commitment to students personal development is, in and of itself, negatively related to research orientation for these two groups of untenured faculty. This finding suggests an important question for further research: In what ways does faculty productivity benefit from an orientation towards both students and research? Additionally, a weak positive predictor of research productivity for nontenured women is the effect of job stress. High stress levels may be a natural byproduct of high productivity, but may also serve as a stimulus for nontenured women to get more

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

433

TABLE 5. Regression Weights of Independent Variables for all Samples Regression WeightsStandardized Beta-weights and t testsa (Unstandardized by weights) A Tenured women n 1137 .01 (.08)ns .01 (.05)ns .02 (14)ns .15(B,C) (.02)*** B Nontenured Women n 1247 .05 (.26)* .02 (.08)ns .01 (.05)ns .07(A,C,D) (.01)** C Tenured Men n 4231 .01 (.11)ns .01 (.06)ns .02 (.21)ns .24(A,B,D) (.03)*** D Nontenured Men n 1929 .04 (.24)ns .02 (.11)ns .01 (.08)ns .16(B,C) (.02)***

Variables Block 1. Demographics Race: African American Race: Asian American/Asian Hispanic Age in years Black 2. Institutional control and selectivity Public inst. Selectivity Block 3. Professional variables Higher academic rank Salary Job stress Research orientation Desire for recognition Commitment to students personal development Block 4. Department Hard Pure Life

.08(D) (.21)** .00 (.00)ns

.05 (.13)ns .01 (.00)ns

.03 (.08)* .02 (.00)ns

.01(A) (.02)ns .02 (.00)ns

.04(B) (.08)ns .21(B) (.87)*** .01 (.03)ns .37(B) (.16)*** .07 (.05)* .00 (.00)ns .07 (.19)** .05 (.11)ns .05 (.12)*

.16(A,C) (.23)*** .10(A,C,D) (.37)** .05 (.14)* .44(A) (.14)*** .01(C,D) (.01)ns .08(C) (.12)** .01 (.04)ns .07 (.15)** .00 (.01)ns

.08(B) (.19)*** .22(B) (.92)*** .03 (.08)ns .39 (.17)*** .11(B) (.15)*** .01(B) (.03)ns .07 (.17)*** .05 (.11)*** .00 (.00)ns

.11 (.14)*** .24(B) (.83)*** .04 (.11)ns .36 (.14)*** .10(B) (.13)*** .05 (.10)** .05 (.13)** .08 (.19)*** .01 (.01)ns

434

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

TABLE 5. (Continued) Regression WeightsStandardized Beta-weights and t testsa (Unstandardized by weights) A Tenured women n 1137 B Nontenured Women n 1247 C Tenured Men n 4231 D Nontenured Men n 1929

Variables Block 5. Family-related factors Married or with partner Dependent children Spouse or partner an academic Spouse or partner works in same city Interrupted career for health/ family Home stress Care of elderly parent Stress from personal finances Stress from marital friction Stress from illness or death of spouse Hours per week spent on household or childcare duties
a

.02 (.07)ns .03 (.05)ns .01 (.03)ns .02 (.04)ns .05 (.14)ns .08 (.16)ns .02 (.03)ns .04 (.06)ns .03 (.06)ns .02 (.04)ns .01 (.01)ns

.01 (.03)ns .04 (.08)ns .01 (.02)ns .02 (.04)ns .01 (.02)ns .02 (.03)ns .04 (.05)ns .07(D) (.09)** .02 (.03)ns .02 (.04)ns .03 (.01)ns

.02 (.07)ns .00 (.00)ns .03(D) (.08)* .01(D) (.03)ns .02 (.12)ns .00 (.010)ns .01 (.00)ns .02 (.04)ns .03 (.07)* .02 (.05)ns .01 (.00)ns

.02 (.06)ns .03 (.06)ns .04(C) (.10)ns .05(C) (.11)* .04 (.24)* .05 (.11)ns .01 (.01)ns .02(B) (.03)ns .01 (.02)ns .02 (.07)ns .01 (.00)ns

Results of t tests shown by letters in parenthesis, e.g., (B) denotes an effect that is significantly different from that found for group B (nontenured women). *p .05; **p .01; ***p .001.

of their work published. Finally, faculty desire for professional recognition is a significant predictor of research productivity only for men (both tenured and nontenured). Faculty departmental affiliation also contributes to research productivity. Teaching in a department classified as pure (history, chemistry, physics, math,

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

435

economics, etc.) has a modest positive relationship with research productivity for nontenured women and both tenured and nontenured men, with a slightly higher level of significance for both groups of men. Research productivity for tenured women, and both tenured and nontenured men, was also higher among those teaching in departments classified as hard disciplines by Biglan (biochemistry, engineering, astronomy, chemistry, physics, etc.), with a slightly stronger relationship existing for tenured men. Finally, research productivity is higher among tenured women working in disciplines classified as life (biology, physiology, sociology, political science, social welfare, etc.). After controlling for the effects of critical variables such as age, rank, research orientation, and department, the block of family-related variables contributed very little to faculty research productivity. A total of five family variables were significant for one group or another, but represent some of the weakest effects detected in this study. Interestingly, among these five variables, only one of them emerged as significant for women: the negative effect of financial stress on research productivity for untenured women. Even this variable arguably is the least reflective of family among all variables in the family block. Two family variables emerged as weakly significant for tenured men: the positive effect of having a spouse or partner who is an academic and the negative effect of stress related to marital friction. Two other variables were significant (and positive) for untenured men only: having a spouse or partner who lives in the same city and interrupting ones career for health or family reasons. This latter effectperhaps the only counterintuitive finding in the family blocksuggests that a career interruption may actually enhance research productivity for some faculty. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Publication rates among women faculty have increased significantly in recent decades. Nevertheless, the gender gap in research productivity remains obstinate, particularly at the highest levels of productivity. This study has examined the extent to which this persistent gender gap can be explained by womens family-related commitments. The effects of family were analyzed after controlling for traditional predictors of research productivity, such as age, rank, and departmental characteristics. In short, family variables contributed little or nothing to the prediction of faculty research productivity. More important were professional variables such as academic rank, salary, orientation toward research, and desire for recognition. The direction of effect for these professional variables is not clear from the data. Some of these relationships are likely to be reciprocal. For example, productivity in ones research may elevate rank and salary, while higher rank and

436

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

salary provide the level of resources and job security that serve to bolster ones level of productivity. Other professional variables, such as research orientation and desire for recognition, presumably precede research productivity. In other words, women publish less in part because they are less driven by a desire to produce numerous publications and receive professional accolades. Rather, as revealed by further investigation into this data set, women are more likely than men to view an academic career as an opportunity to influence social change. It is quite possible that for many women, time not spent publishing is spent instead on projects or other activities perceived as having more direct societal impact. While we are not surprised that career orientations and other professional variables explain differences in faculty research productivity, we nevertheless question why family factors, such as having children, would have virtually no effect. Common sense suggests that faculty with dependent children would simply have less time to devote to research and writing than would other faculty. Further, one might expect children to serve as a stronger impediment to womens research productivity than to mens, given the disproportionate share of daily family responsibilities that continue to be carried by women (Hensel, 1991; Rausch, Ortiz, Douthitt, and Reed, 1989). Nevertheless, our findings are consistent with those of Hamovitch and Morgensterns (1977) early comprehensive work showing that childrearing does not interfere with womens research productivity. They hypothesized that women with children maintain competitive levels of research productivity because they attempt to do more with their limited time and because they take time out of other activities (such as leisure) in order to spend more time with their children. In a study of women scientists, Cole and Zuckerman (1987) do report a tendency among women with children to severely limit their free time and to focus almost exclusively on their careers and their families. To further explore this issue of time allocation, we examined the percentage of faculty who spend significant amounts of time (defined as 13 or more hours per week) devoted to research and scholarly writing and to household/childcare duties while holding constant the range of articles published in the last 2 years (see Table 6). These analyses allow us to examine broadly the time allocations of men and womenwith and without dependent childrenwithin equivalent productivity levels. Overall, these results showed that when women and men publish at equivalent rates, women spend somewhat fewer hours than men working on their research but significantly more hours than men devoted to domestic responsibilities. This finding raises a host of questions to be considered in future research. First, how much time does it actually take faculty to conduct their research and see it through to publication? How does this vary by factors such as gender, dependent-child status, and field? Do variations in time allocation affect the

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

TABLE6.PercentageofFacultyWhoSpend13 HoursPerWeekonResearch/ScholarlyWritingand Household/Childcare,byNumberofPublications Household/Childcare Women With Children 38.9 37.8 38.0 42.4 17.6 15.5 19.1 18.9 19.0 22.3 25.9 25.3 9.1 8.0 10.5 8.6 7.8 23.5 42.9 63.8 Without Children With Children Without Children With Children Without Children 8.5 25.3 46.2 65.7 Men Women With Children 10.1 30.9 54.3 67.1 Research/Writing Men Without Children 9.7 29.7 56.9 68.2

#ofPublicationsin Past2Years

0 14 510 11

437

438

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

quality of work that is published? Second, do gender and dependent-child status influence the nature of publications that faculty produce (i.e., articles, books, or chapters; single or multiple authored works; etc.)? Finally, how are women able to maintain competitive levels of productivity while spending more time on domestic responsibilities? What, if anything, must they compromise in order to accomplish both? Answering these questions necessitates the collection of more comprehensive data on the research process and the nature of the publications that emerge. In sum, while our findings characterize many faculty women as overextended, managing to balance the demands of home, children, and a productive academic career, this study suggests that family-related factors do not interfere with scholarly productivity. Nevertheless, there continues to be a widely held assumption that family responsibilities do stand to compromise a faculty member s career, and prevailing myths continue to affect the recruitment and retention of women faculty. Indeed, as reported earlier, other research has shown that large numbers of young female professors put off marriage and children until after they receive tenure and that family responsibilities lead more women than men to leave academe or choose nontenure track positions. Given these serious consequences, it is critical for future research to examine how the notion that family responsibilities serve to threaten faculty productivity continues to survive within academe.

APPENDIX A. Description of Variables Block Dependent Variable Variable Descriptions publication in the last two years: 1 none; 2 12; 3 34; 4 510; 5 1120; 6 2150; 7 51. Three dummy variables indicating race of faculty member (African American, Asian, and Hispanic); coded 2 yes; 1 no. Note: the exclusion of a specific variable indicating nonminority or Caucasian indicates all comparisons made to this group Faculty age at the time of the survey 1 private; 2 public Mean SAT composite (Verbal and Math) of entering freshmen, or ACT composite (English and Math)

Research Prod- Professional writings published or accepted for uctivity

Block 1 Demographics

Race

Block 2 Institutional selectivity and control

Age Control Selectivity

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

439

APPENDIX A. (Continued) Block Block 3 Professional variables Academic rank 1 instructor or lecturer; 2 assistant professor; 3 associate professor; 4 professor. Faculty salary Natural log of annual faculty salary. The natural log of salary was used because raw salary was highly skewed. Job stress 10-item scale, alpha .7477, indicating the extent of stress related to the following professorial job components: review/promotion process, committee work, faculty meetings, colleagues, students, research or publishing demands, institutional procedures and red tape, teaching load, time pressures, and lack of personal time. Research orient- 3-item scale, alpha .7430, indicating the facation ulty member s time spent in research and preference for research-related activities. Desire for reDesire to become an authority in the field and to cognition earn recognition from colleagues. Student per8-item scale, alpha .8285, measuring faculty sonal develcommitment to promoting the following in unopment dergraduates: emotional development, moral character, personal values, commitment to community service, preparation for family living, preparation for responsible citizenship, self-understanding, and out-of-class experiences. Departments All departments in the database are organized into six categories (Hard vs. Soft, Pure vs. Applied, Life vs. Nonlife) according to Biglans classification system. 2 married/partner; 1 unmarried/no partner Variable Descriptions

Block 4 Department

Block 5 Family-related factors

Marital status

Dependent child 2 yes; 1 no Academic 2 yes; 1 no spouse or partner Spouse or part2 yes; 1 no ner works in same city

440

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

APPENDIX A. (Continued) Block Variable Interrupted career for health or family reasons Home stress Stress-care of elderly parent Stress-personal finances Stress-marital friction Stress-illness or death of spouse Hours per week spent on household or childcare duties 2 yes; 1 no Descriptions

3 item scale, alpha .6681 (household responsibilities; child care; childrens problems). Extent of stress from the care of elderly parent (1 not at all to 3 extensive). Extent of stress from personal finances (1 not at all to 3 extensive). Extent of stress from marital friction (1 not at all to 3 extensive). Extent of stress from illness or death of spouse (1 not at all to 3 extensive). 1 none; 2 14; 3 58; 4 912; 5 13 16; 6 1720; 7 2124; 8 3544; 9 45

APPENDIXB.VariableMeans,StandardDeviations,andToleranceLevels
TenuredWomen Mean 0.15 0.15 0.14 7.83 0.45 104 0.59 0.27 0.36 2.68 0.83 0.624 0.385 0.5 0.499 0.469 0.458 0.482 0.5 0.378 0.541 0.708 0.696 0.571 0.435 1.32 0.68 3.56 1.328 0.656 2.986 0.853 0.885 0.892 0.927 0.385 0.544 0.777 0.606 0.846 0.396 0.954 0.809 0.806 0.913 2.446 1.185 1.445 1.532 1.353 1.709 1.293 1.459 1.253 1.663 1.394 1.878 1.332 1.097 0.627 0.389 0.497 0.499 0.478 0.454 0.455 0.499 0.435 0.556 0.666 0.757 0.598 0.394 0.865 0.918 0.833 0.921 0.424 0.624 0.864 0.721 0.797 0.43 0.869 0.811 0.878 0.947 2.193 1.414 1.482 1.394 1.373 1.898 1.278 1.632 1.027 1.502 1.428 1.56 1.275 1.103 0.604 0.493 0.5 0.489 0.484 0.302 0.448 0.482 0.161 0.484 0.65 0.66 0.547 0.389 1.444 0.908 0.857 0.888 0.902 0.538 0.798 0.931 0.822 0.983 0.559 0.955 0.786 0.861 0.96 0.727 2.247 1.334 1.487 1.409 1.436 1.85 1.277 1.554 1.046 1.555 1.321 1.797 1.328 1.082 3.187 0.606 0.472 0.5 0.492 0.496 0.357 0.448 0.497 0.21 0.505 0.589 0.719 0.582 0.341 1.417 0.953 0.951 0.972 0.588 0.68 0.58 0.549 0.497 0.815 0.651 0.746 1.045 1.04 1.033 43.19 1.734 1026 3.032 3.762 1.968 1.152 0.193 0.207 0.196 0.178 8.635 0.442 109.6 0.699 0.272 0.372 3.16 0.859 0.955 0.961 0.952 0.657 0.637 0.594 0.532 0.474 0.86 0.603 0.802 1.01 1.039 1.02 54.32 1.726 1035 1.402 4.236 1.757 2.112 0.326 0.1 0.193 0.139 8.589 0.446 108.7 0.537 0.29 0.377 2.721 0.865 0.983 0.963 0.982 0.534 0.636 0.561 0.598 0.505 0.776 0.686 0.79 1.03 1.049 1.032 45.18 1.705 1036 2.518 3.958 1.857 1.938 0.323 0.171 0.216 0.177 10.86 0.456 111.6 0.909 0.331 0.385 2.985 0.85 SD TOL Mean SD TOL Mean SD TOL Mean SD TOL 0.949 0.949 0.97 0.435 0.634 0.572 0.355 0.42 0.794 0.613 0.765 0.867 0.862 0.869 0.883 0.534 0.766 0.914 0.836 0.948 0.512 0.918 0.75 0.863 0.949 441 0.676 NontenuredWomen TenuredMen NontenuredMen

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

VariableName

Race:AfricanAmerican1.02 Race:AsianAmerican1.02 Hispanic1.02 Ageinyears50.8 Publicinstitution1.72 Selectivity1021 Higheracademicrank1.66 Salary4.08 Jobstress1.98 Researchorientation1.81 Desireforrecognition0.35 Commitmenttostudentspersonal development2.364 Department:Hard1.181 Department:Pure1.492 Department:Life1.529 Marriedorwithpartner1.327 DependantChildren1.701 Spouseorpartneranacademic1.398 Spouseorpartnerworksinsamecity1.52 Interruptedcareerforhealth/family1.172 Homestress1.615 Careofelderlyparent1.538 Stressfrompersonalfinances1.595 Stressfrommaritalfriction1.296 Stressfromillnessordeathofspouse1.128 Hoursperweekspentonhousehold/ childcareduties3.66

APPENDIXC.BiglansClassificationSystemReflectingCharacteristicsofAcademicDisciplines Soft Pure Applied Life Nonlife

442

Hard

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

AGRICULTURE BACTERIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY BIOPHYSICS BOTANY ENVIRONSCI MARINELIFESCI PHYSIOLOGY ZOOLOGY OTHBIOSCI COMPUTERSCIENCE AERO/ASTROENG CHEMICALENG CIVILENG ELECTRICALENG INDUSTRIALENG MECHANICAL ENG NUCLEARENG OTHENGINEERING ETHNICSTUDIES THERAPY VETERINARY MED

ARCHITECTURE ACCOUNTINGFINANCE INTLBUSINESS MARKETING MANAGEMENT OTHERBUSINESS BUSINESSEDUC ELEMENTARY EDUC EDUCADMIN EDPSYCH/COUNS HIGHEREDUCA MUSIC/ARTEDUC PHYS/HEALTH EDUC SECONDARY EDUC SPECIALEDUC OTHEREDUCATION ART DRAMATICS/SPCH MUSIC OTHERFINE ARTS

BACTERIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY BIOPHYSICS BOTANY ENVIRONSCI MARINELIFESCI PHYSIOLOGY ZOOLOGY ART DRAMATICS/SPCH MUSIC OTHERFINE ARTS FORESTRY GEOGRAPHY DENTISTRY FOREIGNLIT FRENCH GERMAN SPANISH OTHFOREIGN HISTORY LINGUISTICS PHILOSOPHY RELIGION/THEOL

AGRICULTURE ARCHITECTURE OTHBIOSCI ACCOUNTING FINANCE INTLBUSINESS MARKETING MANAGEMENT OTHERBUSINESS COMPUTERSCIENCE BUSINESSEDUC ELEMENTARY EDUC EDUCADMIN EDPSYCH/COUNS HIGHEREDUCA MUSIC/ARTEDUC PHYS/HEALTH EDUC SECONDARY EDUC SPECIALEDUC OTHEREDUCATION AERO/ASTROENG

AGRICULTURE BACTERIOLOGY BIOCHEMISTRY BIOPHYSICS BOTANY ENVIRONSCI MARINELIFESCI PHYSIOLOGY ZOOLOGY OTHBIOSCI MANAGEMENT OTHERBUSINESS ELEMENTARY EDUC EDUCADMIN EDPSYCH/COUNS HIGHEREDUCA MUSIC/ARTEDUC PHYS/HEALTH EDUC SECONDARY EDUC SPECIALEDUC OTHEREDUCATION AERO/ASTROENG

ARCHITECTURE ACCOUNTING FINANCE INTLBUSINESS MARKETING COMPUTERSCIENCE BUSINESSEDUC CHEMICALENG CIVILENG ELECTRICALENG INDUSTRIALENG MECHANICALENG NUCLEARENG OTHENGINEERING ETHNICSTUDIES ART DENTISTRY FOREIGNLIT FRENCH GERMAN SPANISH OTHFOREIGN HISTORY RELIGION/THEOL MATH/STATISTICS

APPENDIXC.(Continued) Soft FORESTRY GEOGRAPHY DENTISTRY HEALTHTECH MEDICINE/SURG NURSING PHARMACY ENGLISHLANG/ LIT FOREIGNLIT FRENCH GERMAN SPANISH OTHFOREIGN HISTORY LINGUISTICS PHILOSOPHY RELIGION/THEOL OTHERHUMANITIES JOURNALISM LAW LAWENFORCEMENT LIBRARYSCIENCE DRAMATICS/SPCH HEALTHTECH MEDICINE/SURG NURSING PHARMACY THERAPY VETERINARY MED OTHERHEALTH HOMEECONOMICS ENGLISHLANG/ LIT LINGUISTICS PHILOSOPHY OTHERHUMANITIES JOURNALISM LAW LAWENFORCEMENT LIBRARYSCIENCE COUNSELING EXPERPSYCH SOCIALPSYCH MILITARYSCIENCE ASTRONOMY ATMOSPHERICSCI CHEMISTRY EARTHSCIENCES MARINESCIENCES PHYSICS OTHPHYSICALSCI CLINICALPSYCH POLISCI,GOVT DATAPROCESSING DRAFTING/DESIGN ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIALARTS MECHANICS OTHERTECHNICAL OTHERVOCATIONAL WOMENSSTUDIES Pure Applied Life Nonlife

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

Hard

OTHERHEALTH HOMEECONOMICS ATMOSPHERIC SCI CHEMISTRY EARTHSCIENCES MARINESCIENCES PHYSICS OTHERPHYSICAL SCI CLINICALPSYCH DRAFTING/ DESIGN ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL ARTS

443

OTHERHUMANITIES JOURNALISM LAW LAWENFORCEMENT MILITARYSCIENCE ASTRONOMY ATMOSPHERIC SCI CHEMISTRY EARTHSCIENCES MARINESCIENCES PHYSICS OTHPHYSICAL SCI CLINICALPSYCH ARCHAEOLOGY ECONOMICS POLISCI,GOVT SOCIOLOGY OTHERSOCIAL SCI SOCWORK/WELFARE

CHEMICALENG CIVILENG ELECTRICALENG INDUSTRIALENG MECHANICAL ENG NUCLEARENG OTHENGINEERING ETHNICSTUDIES MUSIC OTHERFINE ARTS FORESTRY GEORGRAPHY HEALTHTECH MEDICINE/SURG NURSING PHARMACY THERAPY VETERINARY MED OTHERHEALTH HOMEECONOMICS ENGLISHLANG/ LIT

444

APPENDIXC.(Continued) Soft MATH/STATISTICS MILITARYSCIENCE ASTRONOMY COUNSELING EXPERPSYCH SOCIALPSYCH OTHERPSYCHOLOGY ANTHROPOLOGY ARCHAEOLOGY ECONOMICS POLISCI,GOVT SOCIOLOGY OTHERSOCIALSCI SOCWORK/ WELFARE BUILDINGTRADES DATAPROCESSING MECHANICS OTHERTECHNICAL OTHERVOCATIONAL WOMENSSTUDIES BUILDING TRADES LIBRARYSCIENCES MATH/ STATISTICS COUNSELING EXPERPSYCH SOCIALPSYCH OTHERPSYCHOLOGY ANTHROPOLOGY DATAPROCESSING DRAFTING/ DESIGN ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL ARTS MECHANICS OTHERTECHNICAL OTHERVOCATIONAL WOMENS STUDIES OTHERPSYCHOLOGY ANTHROPOLOGY ARCHAEOLOGY ECONOMICS SOCIOLOGY OTHERSOCIAL SCI SOCWORK/ WELFARE BUILDING TRADES Pure Applied Life Nonlife

Hard

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

FACULTY RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY

445

ENDNOTES
1. For a more detailed description of the weighting procedure, see Sax et al. (1999). 2. Interaction was tested by adding a block of interaction terms that were derived as cross products between the variable, tenure status, and all other independent variables in the equation (see Pedhazur, 1982, for a complete explanation of this procedure). 3. The item used in the measurement of marital status asked respondents if they were married or living with a partner. Therefore, married faculty included those under the traditional definition as well as faculty living with a permanent partner (regardless of gender).

REFERENCES
Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Dey, E.L. (1991). The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 198990 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles; Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Astin, H. S. (1969). The Woman Doctorate in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Astin, H. S. (1978). Factors affecting womens scholarly productivity. In A.S. Astin and W. Z. Hirsch (eds.), The Higher Education of Women: Essays in Honor of Rosemary Park, pp. 133157. New York: Praeger. Astin, H. S., and Davis, D. E. (1985). Research productivity across the life and career cycles: facilitator and barriers for women. Reprinted in J. S. Glazer, E. M. Bensimon, and B. K. Townsend (eds.), Women in Higher Education: A Feminist Perspective, pp. 415423. Needham Heights, MA: ASHE Reader Series, Ginn Press. Bassara, B. B. (1979). Career patterns of female professors in West Berlin institutions of higher education. Journal of the NAWDAC 24(4): 2230. Bayer, A. E. (1973). Teaching Faculty in Academe: 197273. ACE Research Report, Volume 8, No. 2. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bayer, A. E., and Dutton, J. (1977). Career age and research-professional activity of academic scientists. Journal of Higher Education 48: 259282. Bellas, M. L., and Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race and family effects. The Review of Higher Education 22: 367390. Bentley, R. J., and Blackburn, R. T. (1990). Relationship of faculty publication performance with age, career age, and rank. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Portland, OR. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3): 204213. Blackburn, R. T., Bieber, J. P., Lawrence, J. H., and Trauvetter, L. C. (1991). Faculty at work: focus on research, scholarship and service. Research in Higher Education 32: 385413. Cole, J. R., and Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood and research performance in science. Scientific American 256: 119125. Collins, Lynn H. (1998). Competition and contact: The dynamics behind resistance to affirmative action in academe. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, and K. Quina (eds.), Career Strategies for Women in Academe: Arming Athena. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: a study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review 30: 699714.

446

SAX, HAGEDORN, ARREDONDO, AND DICRISI III

Creamer, E. G. (1995). The scholarly productivity of women academics. Initiatives 57(1): 19. Creamer, E. G. (1998). Assessing Faculty Publication Productivity: Issues of Equity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume, 26, No. 2. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Finkel, S. K., and Olswang, S. G. (1994). Impediments to tenure for female assistant professors. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ, November 1013. Fulton, O., and Trow, M. (1974). Research activity in American higher education. Sociology of Education 47: 2973. Gmelch, W. H., Wilke, P. K., and Lovrich, N. P. (1986). Dimensions of stress among university faculty: factor-analytic results from a national study. Research in Higher Education 24: 266286. Golden, J., and Carstensen, F. V. (1992). Academic research productivity, department size and organization: further results, comment. Economics of Education Review 11: 153160. Hagedorn, L. S., and Sax, L. J. (1999). Marriage, Children, and Aging Parents: The Role or Family-Related Factors in Faculty Job Satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 1999. Hamovitch, W., and Morgenstern, R. D. (1977). Children and the productivity of academic women. Journal of Higher Education XLVII: 633645. Hensel, N. (1991). Realizing Gender Equality in Higher Education: The Need to Integrate Work/Family Issues. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Herndon, M. D. (1995). Elder care comes of age. CUPA Journal 46(3): 3538. Hobbs, F. B. (1999). The Elderly Population. Report of the U.S. Census Bureau Internet report: Http://www.census/population/www/pop-profile/elderpop html. January 21, 1999. Lawrence, J. H., and Blackburn, R. T. (1988). Age as a predictor of faculty productivity. Journal of Higher Education 59: 2238. Meador, M., Walters, S. J. K., and Jordan, J. M. (1992). Academic research productivity: reply, still further results. Economics of Education Review 11: 161167. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Rausch, D. K., Ortiz, B. P., Douthitt, R. A., and Reed, L. L. (1989). The academic revolving door: why do women get caught? CUPA Journal 40: 116. Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., and Gilmartin, S. K. (1999). The American College Teacher: National Norms for the 199899 HERI Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education 34(4): 451464. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1995). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995, 115th ed. Washington, DC: Author. Ward, K. B., and Grant, L. (1996). Gender and academic publishing. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XI, pp. 172212. Edison, NJ: Agathon.
Received September 13, 1999.