Received 10/24/19

Revised 02/25/20
Accepted 03/03/20

•
DOI: 10.1002/joec.12150

work stress and comfort in

university faculty: do gender and
academic field matter?
Elizabeth J. Russell and Ingrid K. Weigold

University faculty face stressors, including multiple roles, institutional pressures, and
varying student demands, which may differ by gender and across fields. Using the
questionnaire variant of a convergent mixed-methods design, we examined whether
self-reported work stress and comfort differed by gender and academic field gender
stereotype in participants from two universities. Results showed that female faculty
reported more quantitative role overload, qualitative role overload, and career devel-
opment stress than male faculty regardless of field. Qualitative themes centered on
institutional barriers and unique pressures for women, although these experiences
varied by field. Implications, limitations, and future research for employment coun-
selors are explored.

Keywords: gender, work stress, occupational stress, higher education, faculty

Exploring workplace social inequities can be empowering for clients in employment

counseling (Crucil & Amundson, 2017; Neault & Mondair, 2011). In academia, one
aspect to consider is gender inequity. Women, especially in masculine-stereotyped
fields such as math and science, face discrimination and gendered expectations
from colleagues and students (Hall & Sandler, 1982; Hart & Cress, 2008; Roos &
Gatta, 2009). Men, too, face pressures from masculine-stereotyped roles (Tyther-
leigh et al., 2007). These issues may create work stress, which has been related
to faculty turnover, distress, and job dissatisfaction (Catano et al., 2010; Ryan et
al., 2012). However, little research has examined faculty stress across genders
and across fields. Therefore, this study explores how gender and field relate to
faculty work stress and comfort. The findings will have implications for employ-
ment counselors who wish to advocate for equitable workplaces for faculty and
others in gender-nontraditional careers.

Elizabeth J. Russell, Department of Psychology, Cardinal Stritch University; Ingrid K. Weigold, School
of Counseling, The University of Akron. Elizabeth J. Russell is now at Department of Psychology,
Winona State University. Ingrid K. Weigold is now at Department of Psychology, The University of
Akron. This research was completed for Elizabeth J. Russell’s master of arts thesis. We wish to
thank Carole Rayburn for her support in providing early feedback and guidance on this project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth J. Russell, Department
of Psychology, Winona State University, PO Box 5838, 175 West Mark Street, Winona, MN 55987
(email: erussell@winona.edu).

© 2020 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

130 journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57
GENDER AND WORK STRESS IN FACULTY

Some studies have found that female faculty report more stress than male faculty (e.g.,
Catano et al., 2010; Hart & Cress, 2008), whereas other studies have found that male and
female faculty report similar levels of stress (e.g., Tytherleigh et al., 2007). One reason for
this discrepancy may be the sources of stress examined in each study. Women may face
discrimination, gendered expectations, and work-family issues (Catano et al., 2010; Hart &
Cress, 2008; O’Meara, 2015), whereas men may face pressure to provide financially for their
family (Tytherleigh et al., 2007). In exploring role stress among university employees, Love
et al. (2010) called for further study of gendered stress in academia. Taken together, these
findings suggest the need for research that differentiates the types of stress among faculty.
Several issues relating to female faculty’s work may affect stress and comfort. One
issue may be pay and advancement disparities for women, which have been linked to
stress, work satisfaction, and turnover intent (Hart & Cress, 2008; Roos & Gatta, 2009;
Ryan et al., 2012). A second issue may be expectations to take on extra, undervalued
responsibilities aligned with traditional feminine roles, such as advising and service
(Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Hart & Cress, 2008; Roos & Gatta, 2009). A third issue is
that students often expect female faculty to be more nurturing and may penalize those
who are not (Hart & Cress, 2008; Lampman et al., 2016; Lester, 2011). These factors
could all contribute to a stressful work life for female faculty and underscore the need
to consider multiple dimensions of stress.
A model by Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) identified six types of work stress. Role
ambiguity refers to confusion about work responsibilities and roles. Role conflict refers
to stress from conflicting job responsibilities. Quantitative role overload refers to having
too many responsibilities. Qualitative role overload refers to feeling unsupported in
completing responsibilities effectively. Career development refers to difficulties with career
advancement. Responsibility for people refers to having to manage or guide others. The
pressures experienced by female faculty may contribute to stress in all of these areas.

DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC CONCERNS

Women’s realities may also be formed by work field stereotypes. Women have reported
higher stress in male-dominated work outside academia, such as police and correc-
tions work (Paoline et al., 2015) and medicine (Walsh, 2013). It stands to reason that
this may extend to areas of academia. Hall and Sandler (1982) described a “chilly
climate” (p. 3) for women in male-dominated fields, in which their participation is
discouraged and their ideas are devalued. Compared with men, women in such fields
have reported worse department climates, lower inclusion, and less mentoring (Maranto
& Griffin, 2011), as well as higher workload and tokenization (Hirshfield & Joseph,
2012). However, little research has directly compared faculty work stress across fields.
Another challenge for women in male-dominated fields is the “comfort factor”
(Sandler, 1991, p. 10), whereby people often feel more comfortable with those of
the same gender, thus causing lower comfort for those whose gender identity is
underrepresented in their fields. However, a paucity of research exists on comfort
separate from workplace climate. In one exception, Patridge et al. (2014) found that
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning faculty in science, technology, engineering,

journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57 131

and mathematics felt lower comfort at work. A qualitative analysis of the data found
that department was a key factor in comfort (Blumenfeld et al., 2016). Together,
these findings indicate that research on comfort of men and women in stereotype-
incongruent fields, particularly within departments, is warranted.
Because representation often reflects stereotypes (Koenig & Eagly, 2014), we used
the National Center for Education Statistics data on sex distributions in academia
(Snyder et al., 2008) as a proxy for field stereotype in our study. To our knowledge,
this is the most recent comprehensive U.S. data set with this information. We labeled
fields deviating by 9 points or more from overall faculty balance (61.7% male, 38.3%
female) as stereotyped fields. Masculine-stereotyped fields included engineering (91.5%
male), physical sciences (81.6% male), philosophy (78.4% male), economics (78.4%
male), political science (78.2% male), mathematics (71.7% male), and biological sci-
ences (70.9% male). Feminine-stereotyped fields included education (60.7% female),
English and literature (56.5% female), health professions (51.2% female), and foreign
languages (51.2% female). Except for biological sciences, these imbalances remain
in newly earned doctorates (National Science Foundation, 2018); however, women are
still underrepresented among biology faculty (National Science Foundation, 2016).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) and role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002)
form the basis of our study. Social role theory posits that associations of men and
women with different roles have created stereotypes of men as autonomous and
agentic and women as nurturing and communal (Eagly, 1987). Role congruity theory
argues that those violating these stereotypes are penalized (Eagly & Karau, 2002),
which creates pressure to choose careers along gendered lines, too, thus forming a
link between representation and stereotypes (Koenig & Eagly, 2014). Because women
are underrepresented in academia and in specific fields (Snyder et al., 2008), social
role theory suggests that these careers become masculine stereotyped, and role
congruity theory suggests that women in these careers may be judged more harshly.
Indeed, female faculty, especially in masculine-stereotyped fields, have reported
pressure to adopt traditional feminine traits at work and backlash for not doing so
(Lester, 2011; O’Meara, 2015). In a direct exploration of role congruity theory in
higher education, Nadler et al. (2013) found that students viewing photographs of
professors rated men as more competent than women, and Isaac et al. (2010) found
that female department chairs felt expected to take on traditional feminine roles and
were judged negatively for agentic behaviors.

THE CURRENT STUDY

Our study compared work stress and comfort across gender and field. This adds to
the literature in several ways. First, we examined work stress multidimensionally,
which may help resolve discrepancies in research on gender and faculty stress. Sec-
ond, we explored the largely overlooked area of comfort. Unlike workplace climate,
comfort reflects an internal experience rather than an external environment. Third,
most research has focused on narrow areas of study, but we included a range of

132 journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57

stereotype-consistent or stereotype-inconsistent fields. There may be common factors
in gendered experiences across faculty, but there also may be some nuances in work
stress and comfort based on academic field. Our study allowed us to identify both
of these aspects through direct comparison. Our research questions were as follows:

  Research Question 1: How does work stress in faculty differ by gender identity
and field?
  Research Question 2: How do faculty perceptions of their own and others’ comfort
in their field vary by gender identity and field?

We hypothesized that women, compared with men, would report more stress and
lower comfort, especially in masculine-stereotyped fields.

METHOD

We used the questionnaire variant of a convergent mixed-methods design, with space

included for comments to expand upon quantitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2017). The qualitative data were then used to further validate quantitative analysis.

Measures
Work stress. We measured work stress using the Stress Diagnostic Survey (SDS; Ivancevich
& Matteson, 1980). The SDS consists of 30 items measured on a Likert-type scale
(1 = it is never a source of stress to 7 = it is always a source of stress) and is divided
into the following five-item subscales: Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, Quantitative
Role Overload, Qualitative Role Overload, Career Development, and Responsibility
for People. Sample items include “I lack the proper opportunities to advance in this
organization” and “I simply have more work to do than can be done on an ordinary
day.” Studies using this measure have found acceptable internal consistency and
content validity (Deluga, 1991; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Rush et al., 1995). For
our sample, most subscale Cronbach’s alphas were adequate to good, ranging from .73
for Role Ambiguity to .87 for Career Development. Role Conflict had poor internal
reliability at .59, but omitting it did not change the results so we chose to include it.
Comfort. We measured comfort with two questions: “What is your comfort level
within your academic department regarding your gender?” and “In your opinion, what
is the comfort level of other professors of your gender in your academic field?” For
ratings of self, we asked about department to examine immediate, day-to-day comfort.
For ratings of others, we asked about field to examine discipline climate. Responses
to these questions ranged from 1 (very uncomfortable) to 5 (very comfortable). Below
each question was a space for open-ended responses.
Demographics. A demographic form was included that asked for participants’ age,
gender identity, race/ethnicity, and hours worked per week.

Procedure
We collected data from a large, public, midwestern university and a medium, private,
midwestern university. Sex distributions in departments stereotyped as masculine

journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57 133

(engineering, physical sciences, philosophy, economics, political science, mathematics,
biological sciences) or feminine (education, English and literature, nursing, foreign
languages) were similar to national data. Research administrators at each location gave
permission to collect the data, and institutional review board approval was obtained
from the first author’s institution. The first author recruited tenure-track and tenured
faculty from identified departments during open office hours, and those who agreed
to participate were given paper-and-pencil packets of materials. Those not reached
after 6 weeks were sent an email invitation to participate, and interested faculty were
given materials via university mailbox. Regardless of recruitment method, participants
could return materials by mail or have them picked up in person by the researcher in a
sealed envelope. Participants were entered into a drawing for ten $5 gift cards. In all,
113 survey packets were returned, representing 68% of 166 people given materials
and 42% of 269 people contacted.

Participants

After we screened for eligibility, missing data, and outliers, the final sample included
101 participants (23 women and 28 men in masculine-stereotyped fields, 29 women
and 21 men in feminine-stereotyped fields), with 53 providing qualitative data. All
participants identified as either men or women, most identified as White (n = 88,
87.1%), and the mean age was 50.51 years (SD = 11.78). The sample information
is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Participant Characteristics for Women and Men in Masculine- and
Feminine-Stereotyped Fields
Women (n = 52) Men (n = 49) Full Sample
MSF FSF (N = 101)
MSF FSF
Characteristic (n = 23) (n = 29) (n = 28) (n = 21) n %

Institution
Large, public university 10 17 15 9 51 50.5
Medium, private university 13 12 13 12 50 49.5
Race/ethnicity
White 20 23 27 18 88 87.1
African American/Black 0 4 0 1 5 5.0
Asian/Pacific Islander 3 1 1 0 5 5.0
Hispanic/Latinx 0 1 0 1 2 2.0
Native American 0 0 0 1 1 2.0
Middle Eastern 1 0 0 0 1 1.0
Qualitative comments provided
Yes 18 16 7 12 53 52.5
No 5 13 21 9 48 47.5
Note. Race/ethnicity totals exceed the total sample and the total percentage exceeds 100
because participants were allowed to choose more than one race/ethnicity option. MSF =
masculine-stereotyped field; FSF = feminine-stereotyped field.

134 journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57

Data Analysis

We analyzed quantitative data using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

and two univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs). The independent variables for
all analyses were gender identity and field stereotype. Dependent variables included
the six SDS subscales for the MANOVA and each comfort item for the ANOVAs.
Effect size cutoffs were .01 for small, .06 for medium, and .14 for large (Cohen,
1969; Richardson, 2011).
We analyzed qualitative data using inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke,
2006). We reread responses several times and developed codes; similar codes across
participants were combined into themes. Then, themes were refined, named, and
defined. To ensure trustworthiness, we used suggestions from Creswell and Plano
Clark (2017). We attended to disconfirming evidence and revised themes accord-
ingly, and two other faculty members provided feedback on our analysis. We also
examined our own roles. Both of us are women in psychology departments at public
universities (one a tenure-track assistant professor and the other a tenured full pro-
fessor). Although our departments are relatively gender balanced, our experiences
as women in academia may have affected our analysis.

RESULTS

Work Stress

Quantitative results. We performed a two-way MANOVA to examine the effect of

gender and field stereotype on the six SDS subscales. There was no significant
interaction or field stereotype main effect. However, the main effect for gender was
significant, F(6, 92) = 2.36, p = .04, Wilks’s λ = .87, ηp2 = .13, with differences
found in three subscales. For Quantitative Role Overload, women (M = 19.15,
SD = 7.48) showed higher levels than men (M = 15.04, SD = 6.23), F(1, 97) =
9.55, p < .01, ηp2 = .09. For Qualitative Role Overload, women (M = 10.77, SD =
4.77) showed higher levels than men (M = 9.22, SD = 3.98), F(1, 97) = 3.99, p =
.05, ηp2 = .04. Finally, for Career Development, women (M = 10.48, SD = 7.18)
showed higher levels than men (M = 8.20, SD = 3.80), F(1, 97) = 4.29, p = .04,
ηp2 = .04 (see Table 2).
Qualitative results. One theme from qualitative comments further supported findings
around quantitative role overload and career development. A total of 17 people,
mostly women, noted institutional challenges for women, such as higher workload
and advancement barriers. Furthermore, many noted that women’s extra pressures
and efforts often went unnoticed by men.
Regarding workload, nine women commented on perceptions of pressures for
women to take on additional tasks, many of which were consistent with stereotypi-
cally feminine roles. For example, participants noted that women were expected to
be more focused on teaching, service, and family responsibilities. One woman in a
feminine-stereotyped department wrote,

journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57 135

 TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations by Group for Stress and Comfort
Men Women Total
MSF FSF MSF FSF Men Women Full Sample
(n = 28) (n = 21) (n = 23) (n = 29) (n = 49) (n = 52) (N = 101)
Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
SDS
RA 6.96 1.86 7.05 2.99 8.48 3.75 7.83 2.83 7.00 2.38 8.12 3.25 7.57 2.90
RC 8.61 2.31 9.24 3.70 10.09 3.75 10.10 3.44 8.88 2.97 10.10 3.54 9.51 3.32
QtROa 16.36 6.71 13.29 5.18 18.52 6.88 19.66 8.00 15.04 6.23 19.15 7.48 17.16 7.17
QlROb 10.29 4.15 7.81 3.33 11.04 4.36 10.55 5.14 9.22 3.98 10.77 4.77 10.02 4.45
CDb 8.79 3.97 7.43 3.50 10.96 7.39 10.10 7.12 8.20 3.80 10.48 7.18 9.38 5.88
RP 11.14 4.98 9.33 3.90 10.61 4.16 10.69 5.15 10.37 4.59 10.65 4.69 10.51 4.63
IC 4.71 0.76 4.67 0.80 4.30 1.15 4.38 1.02 4.69 0.77 4.35 1.06 4.51 0.95
OPCa 4.50a 0.92 4.33a 0.97 3.52b 1.16 4.24a,b 0.91 4.43 0.94 3.92 1.08 4.17 1.04

Note. Shared subscripts for means for which there is a significant interaction indicate that the groups
are not significantly different from each other. MSF = masculine-stereotyped field; FSF = feminine-
stereotyped field; SDS = Stress Diagnostic Survey; RA = Role Ambiguity; RC = Role Conflict; QtRO
= Quantitative Role Overload; QlRO = Qualitative Role Overload; CD = Career Development; RP =
Responsibility for People; IC = individual comfort; OPC = others’ perceived comfort, which shows an
interaction effect between gender and field gender stereotype significant at the p < .05 level.
a
Indicates a significant main effect for gender in the multivariate analysis of variance comparing levels of
occupational stress or one of the two analyses of variance comparing perceived comfort level (p < .01).
b
Indicates a significant main effect for gender in the multivariate analysis of variance comparing levels of
occupational stress or one of the two analyses of variance comparing perceived comfort level (p < .05).

There are several male colleagues who don’t contribute much if at all to the service load of the
department, and one who regularly suggests that I or another of my female colleagues take on time-
consuming responsibilities because we’re “good at them” and he is not. These are tasks that involve
following explicitly written out guidelines that anyone with a PhD . . . is quite capable of understanding,
so I assume my perceived gifts have a lot more to do with gender stereotypes than innate abilities.

Seven women and two men mentioned career advancement barriers for women,
supporting findings on women’s higher career development stress. Notably, this
was not limited to women in masculine-stereotyped fields. A woman in a feminine-
stereotyped field wrote,
The “old boys network” exists in my department and at my university. Associate women professors
often have excellent records in teaching and service in addition to respectable scholarship records.
However, teaching and service are devalued except insofar as those are consistent with keeping
the “old boys network” intact. Associate women professors should be advancing to full professor
work, but the department and university criteria for promotion favor those who know how to put
themselves first, i.e., how to concentrate on “their own work” rather than teaching and service.

Comfort

Quantitative results. We performed two 2 × 2 ANOVAs to examine the effects of

gender and field stereotype on the item for personal comfort as well as the item for

136 journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57

others’ comfort. The ANOVA for personal comfort was not significant. In the ANOVA
for others’ comfort, the interaction between gender identity and field stereotype was
significant, F(1, 97) = 4.99, p = .03, ηp2 = .05. A follow-up one-way ANOVA with a
Tukey’s honestly significant difference post hoc test was conducted to examine which
groups were different from each other, and the result was significant, F(3, 97) = 4.58,
p < .01, ηp2 = .12. The post hoc test showed that women in masculine-stereotyped
fields reported lower comfort for women in their field (M = 3.52, SD = 1.16) than
did men in masculine-stereotyped (M = 4.50, SD = 0.92) or feminine-stereotyped
(M = 4.33, SD = 0.97) fields. A significant main effect was found for gender, F(1,
97) = 7.27, p < .01, ηp2 = .07, such that women perceived that other women felt
less comfortable in their field (M = 3.92, SD = 1.08) than men did other men (M =
4.43, SD = 0.94; see Table 2).
Qualitative results. Although quantitative findings revealed few differences,
qualitative findings presented a more nuanced picture. Specifically, five themes
emerged that indicated varying levels of comfort: representation, gender as personally
unimportant, department climate, lack of awareness of challenges for women, and
intersection of other identities and gender.
The theme of representation emerged in over half of the comments, especially from
women in masculine-stereotyped fields, suggesting that women underrepresented
in their fields have qualitatively different experiences compared with other faculty.
Some women said they felt comfortable in their departments or fields because the
balance was closer to even, but their colleagues in departments where they were
especially underrepresented experienced more difficulties. A woman in a masculine-
stereotyped field wrote,

There are most certainly times when I’m the only woman at a conference, on a panel, or in a meeting,
and it’s weird. But, my subfield probably has a higher percentage of women than others, so that’s
positive. We also try to mentor each other, so that helps too. There are far too many women alone
though, which has ramifications for all sorts of things, like lack of knowledge regarding maternity
leave and problems during tenure review due to clock stoppage, etc.

The second most common theme was that gender was not a personal issue for the
participant, endorsed by 22 men and women across fields. Women, however, often
added that it was an issue for other women in their field and generally linked it to
either representation issues or family burdens. A woman in a masculine-stereotyped
field wrote,

Our department is about 40% women, so gender is not an issue. I have felt that my research and
teaching is well supported and respected. . . . My impression is that it varies by department—and
there are certainly pockets of sexism out there.

Another theme was that department climate is key to comfort, mentioned by 17

men and women across fields. Those underrepresented in their fields more often
commented negatively on climate, including two men in feminine-stereotyped fields
who reported discomfort because they found it difficult not to unintentionally offend

journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57 137

others. Women across fields commented on hostility or discomfort within some work
interactions with men, although they often mentioned positive relationships as well.
For example, a woman in a masculine-stereotyped field wrote,

There have been a few times where I have felt uncomfortable in meetings with certain department
members, for example, we have a couple individuals who like to make sexual jokes and/or comment
on the appearance of female students or job candidates. . . . Generally, however, I feel comfortable
with most members of my department, and I feel comfortable discussing such issues with other
[male] members of my department.

Additionally, as noted with regard to work stress, six participants noted a lack of
awareness and recognition of women’s efforts and burdens. Comments revealed that
this has an impact on aspects such as job satisfaction and advancement opportunities.
This issue was mentioned mostly by women, but one man in a feminine-stereotyped
field wrote,

I think this is a very important issue, not because I think I suffer from gender discrimination, given
that I am a male, but I think many women feel that the academic system, like the culture generally,
is slanted very heavily toward male privilege. I think most of the men are quite comfortable, and
sometimes I wonder if they are aware how extraordinarily fortunate and privileged they (we) are.

Finally, of the six women of color in feminine-stereotyped fields who commented,

four noted the impact of identities beyond gender, which indicates a need to consider
how intersecting identities relate to work experiences. One woman in a feminine-
stereotyped field wrote, “My race and gender are inseparable and this has often led
to some problems within the classroom . . . when I’ve tried to explain this to depart-
ment administrators it has not been well received or understood.”

DISCUSSION

This study examined how work stress and comfort in university faculty differ by gender
and field stereotype. Although research has examined gender issues in specific fields
or academia in general, there is a dearth of literature directly comparing stress among
men and women in masculine- and feminine-stereotyped fields. Furthermore, to our
knowledge, our study is the first to address gender and comfort in faculty. Our results
identify the nuanced experiences of men and women working in gender-stereotyped
fields. As hypothesized, compared with men, women in our study reported unique
stress and comfort issues—often around feminine role expectations—that frequently
go unrecognized. Also, partially consistent with our hypothesis, qualitative results
suggest that although overall role expectations for female faculty are similar, there
are subtle distinctions in how these issues are experienced for women in fields with
different stereotypes.
Our results clarify conflicting findings in past research on gender differences in
amount of stress (Catano et al., 2010; Hart & Cress, 2008; Tytherleigh et al., 2007).
Women in our study reported higher stress in specific areas, particularly in having

138 journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57

more work than time allows (quantitative role overload), less support in completing
responsibilities (qualitative role overload), and limitations in career advancement
(career development). Consistent with social role theory (Eagly, 1987) and role congruity
theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), women in our study also reported extra, undervalued
burdens in line with feminine roles, as well as backlash for not fulfilling them.
Stressors women reported in our study support past findings on pay and advancement
inequity (Hart & Cress, 2008; Roos & Gatta, 2009), as well as additional responsibilities
for women (Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Hart & Cress, 2008; Roos & Gatta, 2009). What
our findings add is that these frustrations occur regardless of field, thus illustrating
the importance of considering gender in academia in general. Furthermore, the
women in our study noted others’ lack of awareness of these challenges, which may
be especially invalidating. However, despite past findings that women face different
student demands (Hart & Cress, 2008; Lampman et al., 2016; Lester, 2011), few
participants commented on student issues. Although it is possible that student
expectations do not contribute to stress and comfort, it seems more likely that the
question wording, which focused on comfort within the field and department, may
have led to participants thinking less about classroom experiences. Future research
should explore stress, comfort, and student demands.
Results on field differences were more complex. Role congruity theory (Eagly &
Karau, 2002) suggests backlash should be especially strong for women in masculine-
stereotyped fields. Underrepresentation creates challenges for women (Hirshfield
& Joseph, 2012; Maranto & Griffin, 2011), and our qualitative data support this.
However, quantitatively, women in general reported more stress regardless of field.
It is possible that because penalties for gender role violation occur across female
faculty (Lester, 2011; O’Meara, 2015), this outweighs the impact of field stereotypes.
Another possibility that is better supported by our data is that women have common
stressors that manifest differently across fields. Women in masculine-stereotyped
fields often mention underrepresentation, lack of guidance, and—consistent with
role congruity theory—lack of advancement and approval. However, women in
feminine-stereotyped fields often report pressure to take on traditionally feminine
tasks (e.g., advising, committee work), consistent with social role theory (Eagly,
1987). This comparison of faculty across disciplines contributes to a more complex
understanding of women’s experiences.

Implications
Our results highlight three key areas for employment counselors to consider in relation
to faculty work stress and comfort: equity in workload distribution and advancement,
representation, and workplace climate. Crucil and Amundson (2017) noted that advocacy
can occur on levels ranging from the individual to the systemic. We suggest strategies
for intervention across these levels for working with faculty and others battling gender
inequity in the workplace, especially women in masculine-stereotyped careers.
Regarding equity, women in our study perceived extra, gendered pressure in
teaching, service, and advising compared with men, who could focus on research.

journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57 139

These efforts take time from more valued work, thus impeding advancement, and
others are often unaware of this. Employment counselors should teach self-advocacy
skills while acknowledging systemic barriers (Crucil & Amundson, 2017). They could
work with institutions to provide education about gender issues to those making
tenure and promotion decisions. Finally, they should advocate for clear, objective
advancement guidelines that give weight to activities beyond research.
We found that women who felt better represented generally felt more comfortable;
representation was related to availability of guidance and colleagues’ gender
consciousness. Lack of mentorship is an issue for women in masculine-stereotyped
fields (Maranto & Griffin, 2011). We suggest that employment counselors advocate
for mentoring programs and empower women to seek mentors. This may reduce
isolation and qualitative role overload. Counselors may also lobby for programs to
recruit and retain women in workplaces where they are underrepresented.
Additionally, many participants in our study emphasized the importance of
department and workplace climate. Some women noted instances of both blatant and
subtle sexism contributing to discomfort. University leaders should assess climate in
the workplace and address issues at their institutions at the campus and department
levels. Employment counselors may play a role in this by supporting the efforts to
improve conflict management and create gender-sensitive policies (Neault & Mondair,
2011). If leaders are open and competent in discussing gender issues, their support
may help to increase a sense of connection and validation.
We conclude that institutions should consider the gendered nature of work stress,
most notably in addressing advancement and pay equity, assigning responsibilities
evenly, and creating supportive climates. Given their expertise and education in both
workplace and justice issues, employment counselors are in a unique position to
take on an advocacy role regarding these issues (Crucil & Amundson, 2017). They
can help develop field-specific initiatives to bring attention to barriers experienced
by women and increase awareness of how representation in the workplace affects
isolation, guidance, gender awareness, and comfort. Additional research should
examine methods of supporting women in higher education.

Limitations and Future Directions

Future research should expand on our findings by studying a wider range of faculty
and stressors unique to academia. Our sample was small, relatively homogeneous,
and from only two institutions; additional research should include a more diverse
sample. More standardized recruitment would also be helpful. We followed specific
procedures to recruit faculty, but we could not control for minor variations in in-
person interactions. Another limitation was that we did not quantitatively examine
aspects such as work-family conflict, tenure pressures, or teaching stress. Although
this omission increased our findings’ generalizability to fields beyond education,
studying stressors more specific to faculty would be beneficial. Additionally, because
our comfort measure was not directly validated, research to create and validate a
measure of faculty comfort is warranted. Finally, future research might directly

140 journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57

explore how our findings apply to gender-stereotyped occupations beyond academia,
as well as what types of interventions are most effective.

REFERENCES
Blumenfeld, W. J., Weber, G. N., & Rankin, S. (2016). In our own voice: Campus climate as a mediating
factor in the persistence of LGBT students, faculty, and staff in higher education. In P. Chamness
Miller & E. Mikulec (Eds.), Queering classrooms: Personal narratives and educational practices to
support LGBTQ youth in schools (pp. 1–20). Information Age Publishing.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Catano, V., Francis, L., Haines, T., Kirpalani, H., Shannon, H., Stringer, B., & Lozanzki, L. (2010).
Occupational stress in Canadian universities: A national survey. International Journal of Stress
Management, 17, 232–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018582
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Crucil, C., & Amundson, N. (2017). Throwing a wrench in the work(s): Using multicultural and social
justice competency to develop a social justice–oriented employment counseling toolbox. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 54, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12046
Deluga, R. J. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward-influencing behavior, health care manager
interpersonal stress, and performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 78–88. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00442.x
Eagan, M. K., Jr., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with faculty
productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 923–954. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0034
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological
Review, 109, 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Association of American
Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women.
Hart, J. L., & Cress, C. M. (2008). Are women faculty just “worrywarts”? Accounting for gender differ-
ences in self-reported stress. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17, 175–193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911350802171120
Hirshfield, L. E., & Joseph, T. D. (2012). “We need a woman, we need a Black woman”: Gender, race,
and identity taxation in the academy. Gender and Education, 24, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09540253.2011.606208
Isaac, C., Griffin, L., & Carnes, M. (2010). A qualitative study of faculty members’ views of women chairs.
Journal of Women’s Health, 19, 533–546. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1506
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Scott, Foresman.
Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observa-
tions of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 371–392.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215
Lampman, C., Crew, E. C., Lowery, S. D., Tompkins, K. A., & Mulder, M. (2016). Women faculty distressed:
Descriptions and consequences of academic contrapower harassment. NASPA Journal About Women
in Higher Education, 9, 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407882.2016.1199385
Lester, J. (2011). Regulating gender performances: Power and gender norms in faculty work. NASPA
Journal About Women in Higher Education, 4, 142–169. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-7890.1082
Love, K. M., Tatman, A. W., & Chapman, B. P. (2010). Role stress, interrole conflict, and job satisfaction
among university employees: The creation and test of a model. Journal of Employment Counseling,
47, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2010.tb00088.x
Maranto, C. L., & Griffin, A. E. C. (2011). The antecedents of a “chilly climate” for women faculty in
higher education. Human Relations, 64, 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710377932

journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57 141

Nadler, J. T., Berry, S. A., & Stockdale, M. S. (2013). Familiarity and sex based stereotypes on instant
impressions of male and female faculty. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 517–539. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-013-9217-7
National Science Foundation. (2016). Science and engineering indicators 2016 (Report No. NSB-2016-1).
National Science Board. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2016/nsb20161.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2018). 2017 doctorate recipients from U.S. universities (Special Report NSF
19-301). National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19301/
Neault, R. A., & Mondair, S. (2011). Supporting workplace diversity: Emerging roles for employment
counselors. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2011.
tb00116.x
O’Meara, K. (2015). A career with a view: Agentic perspectives of women faculty. The Journal of Higher
Education, 86, 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2015.0014
Paoline, E. A., Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2015). Job stress and job satisfaction among jail staff:
Exploring gendered effects. Women & Criminal Justice, 25, 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0897
4454.2014.989302
Patridge, E. V., Barthelemy, R. S., & Rankin, S. R. (2014). Factors impacting the academic climate for
LGBQ STEM faculty. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20, 75–98. https://
doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014007429
Richardson, J. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational
research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001
Roos, P. A., & Gatta, M. L. (2009). Gender (in)equity in the academy: Subtle mechanisms and the
production of inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27, 177–200. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rssm.2009.04.005
Rush, M. C., Schoel, W. A., & Barnard, S. M. (1995). Psychological resiliency in the public sector:
“Hardiness” and pressure for change. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 17–39. https://doi.
org/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1002
Ryan, J. F., Healy, R., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Oh, won’t you stay? Predictors of faculty intent to leave a
public research university. Higher Education, 63, 421–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9448-5
Sandler, B. R. (1991). Women faculty at work in the classroom, or, why it still hurts to be a woman in
labor. Communication Education, 40, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529109378821
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2008). Digest of education statistics 2007 (Report No.
NCES 2008-022). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf
Tytherleigh, M. Y., Jacobs, P. A., Webb, C., Rickets, C., & Cooper, C. (2007). Gender, health and stress
in English university staff—Exposure or vulnerability? Applied Psychology, 56, 267–287. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00254.x
Walsh, J. (2013). Gender, the work-life interface and wellbeing: A study of hospital doctors. Gender, Work
& Organization, 200, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2012.00593.x

142 journal of employment counseling • September 2020 • Volume 57