What Got You Here, Won't Help You There: Changing Requirements in the Pre- Versus the Post-tenure Career Stage in Academia

The perceived role fit of women and men academics: evidence from the social sports sciences

Introduction

The underrepresentation of women in academia is often explained by the presence of gender stereotypes and the perception that women fit the role of an academic to a lesser extent. Based on social role theory and role congruity theory, this study investigates and estimates the perceived role fit of women and men academics in the social sports sciences.

Methods

Data were collected with a quantitative online survey. The sample (n = 792) includes individuals who study or work in sports economics, sport management, or sport sociology (referred to as social sports sciences). The questionnaire included items that reflect attributes of an ideal-typical academic as well as women and men academics in four dimensions, i.e., leadership, research methods, media visibility, and research topics. In the first step, these items were used to estimate a total role fit index for both women and men academics, as well as indices for all dimensions. In a second step, regression analyses were used to examine how respondents' individual characteristics (e.g., discipline, career stage, gender, presence of role models) are related to their perceived role fit indices and the differences in the perceived role fit.

Results and discussion

The role fit index ranges from 0 to 1, and women have a higher total role fit than men (0.77 vs. 0.75). The results suggest that women in the social sports sciences are perceived as a better fit for the role of an academic. In contrast to role congruity theory, women's leadership fit is higher than men's fit in this dimension (0.79 vs. 0.72). Regarding the associations of individual characteristics, professors seem to perceive a lower role fit for both genders than students. Furthermore, the difference between the perceived role fit of men and women is smaller for women respondents. Having a woman role model leads to a higher fit of women academics in the leadership dimension.

Sure you are ready? Gendered arguments in recruitment for high-status positions in male-dominated fields

Recruitment contexts such as STEM professorships promote clearly defined selection criteria and objective assessment. We illuminate in these contexts, the subjective interpretation of seemingly objective criteria and gendered arguments in discussions of applicants. Additionally, we explore gender bias despite comparable applicant profiles investigating how specific success factors lead to selection recommendations for male and female applicants. Implementing a mixed methods approach, we aim to highlight the influence of heuristics, stereotyping, and signaling in applicant assessments. We interviewed 45 STEM professors. They answered qualitative open-ended interview questions, and evaluated hypothetical applicant profiles, qualitatively and quantitatively. The applicant profiles enabled a conjoint experiment with different applicant attributes varied across the profiles (i.e., publications, willingness to cooperate, network recommendation, and applicant gender), the interviewees indicating scores of selection recommendation while thinking aloud. Our findings reveal gendered arguments, i.e., questioning women potentially fueled by a perception of women's exceptional status and perceived self-questioning of women. Furthermore, they point to gender-independent and gender-dependent success patterns, thereby to potential success factors particularly for female applicants. We contextualize and interpret our quantitative findings in light of professors' qualitative statements.

Critical events at critical times? A gendered identity approach on the path to (sustainable) leadership

The early career phase is a key period of identity maintenance and change. But, it is also ripe with important, attention-grabbing occurrences (i.e., critical events) that may modify these processes, particularly influencing women's leadership pursuit. Because previous research has overlooked if or how such events might alter identifying or if these processes differ for people who identify as men and women, we integrate the identity and critical events literatures to elaborate on how positive and negative critical events may shape men and women's identifying in the work- and non-work domains over time. We propose that critical events' effects on identity salience will occur both within and across domains, but that these effects will be stronger within (vs. across) domains. While both positive and negative events can exert negative effects on subsequent identity salience, we propose that the effects of critical events on identity salience may be stronger for women (vs. men). Finally, we connect work identity salience with subsequent leadership status, including contextual moderators that enhance or undermine these effects (i.e., inclusive organizational climate and mega-threats, respectively). We conclude with theoretical and practical implications of this research, including for workforce efficiency and social sustainability. We also highlight calls for future research stemming from our review [e.g., sustainability critical events and gendered analyses for (more) accurate science] as well as fruitful research areas and innovative practices at the work-non-work interface for professionals on the path to leadership.