10.2190/WR.13.2.f 014121183P14X3J2 6 Together but Unequal: Combating Gender Inequity in the Academy 185 199 20081118 20081118 20081118 20081118 014121183P14X3J2.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=014121183P14X3J2 2 Patricia A. Roos Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey Although overt discrimination has waned, gender inequity remains in the academy. Using data from a large Arts and Sciences unit at a public research university, I focus on how gender inequities continue to be produced anew and prove to be durable. I describe two processes: workplace interactions that occur within a hierarchy of gender status beliefs, and gender stereotypes that are consciously or unconsciously institutionalized into organizational policies and decision making. Women's lack of access and mobility is no longer simply a "pipeline" issue. Rather, subtle mechanisms of inequity operate to advantage men, while disadvantaging women, helping to keep universities gendered male. By focusing on the institutionalized practices that produce gendered advantages and disadvantages, we can more readily chart a course toward institutional change that identifies and modifies the concrete behaviors and policies that cumulatively reproduce gender inequity in the academy

Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4: 139-158.

Bird, S. R. 2008. Unsettling universities' incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case study approach. Unpublished paper, University of Iowa.

Bird, S., Litt, J., & Wang, Y. 2004. Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as "women's work." National Women's Studies Association Journal, 16: 194-206.

Britton, D. 2000. The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender and Society, 14: 418-434.

Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. 2006. Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

DiTomaso, N., Post, C., Smith, D. R., Farris, G. F., & Cordero, R. 2007. Effects of structural position on allocation and evaluation decisions for scientists and engineers in industrial R&D. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 175-207.

Eveline, J. 2004. Ivory basement: Power and invisibility in the changing university. Crawley, Western Australia: University of Western Australia Press.

Hopkins, N. 2006. Diversification of a university faculty: Observations on hiring women faculty in the schools of science and engineering at MIT. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/184/hopkins_fnl184.pdf'>http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/184/hopkins_fnl184.pdf</a>

Kmec, J. A. 2005. Setting occupational sex segregation in motion. Work and Occupations, 32: 322-354.

MIT. (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html'>http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html</a>

Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T., & Alexander, A. 2008. Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on Politics, 6: 215-233.

Petersen, T. 2006. Motive and cognition: Conscious and unconscious processes in employment discrimination. In J. Elster, O. Gjelsvik, A. Hylland, & K. Moene (Eds.), Understanding choice, explaining behaviour: Essays in honour of Ole-Jorgen Skog: 225-248. Oslo: Oslo Academic Press.

Reskin, B. F. 2003. Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. American Sociological Review, 68: 1-21.

Ridgeway, C. L. 1997. Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62: 218-235.

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. 2000. Limiting inequality through interaction: The end(s) of gender. Contemporary Sociology, 29: 110-120.

Roos, P. A., & Gatta, M. L. in press. Gender (in)equity in the academy: Subtle mechanisms and the production of inequality. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, forthcoming

Roos, P. A., & Reskin, B. F. 1984. Institutional factors contributing to sex segregation in the workplace. In B. F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation in the workplace: Trends, explanations, remedies: 235-260. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sturm, S. 2006. The architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29: 247-334.

Task Force on the Status of Women Faculty in the Natural Sciences and Engineering at Princeton. 2003. Report of the Task Force on the Status of Women Faculty in the Natural Sciences and Engineering at Princeton. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.princeton.edu/pr/reports/sciencetf/sciencetf-9-19-03.pdf'>www.princeton.edu/pr/reports/sciencetf/sciencetf-9-19-03.pdf</a>

Tilly, C. 1998. Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Valian, V. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

West, M. S., Laky, G., Lokke, K., Paw U. K. T., & Ham, S. 2005. Unprecedented urgency: Gender discrimination in faculty hiring at the University of California. Retrieved from <a target="_blank" href='http://universitywomen.stanford.edu/reports/unprecedented.pdf'>http://universitywomen.stanford.edu/reports/unprecedented.pdf</a>