Linda Grant

Is There An Association between Gender and Methods in Sociological Research

Feminist scholars have proposed that two types of links exist between research methods and gender. Female scholars have been thought to be more likely than males to choose qualitative methods because such methods are compatible with relational and emotional skills stereotypically associated with women. Qualitative approaches also have been thought to be especially appropriate for study of gender issues and womens experiences and to be an effective strategy for correcting androcentric biases in construction of social theory. We examine articles in 10 sociology journals in 1974-83. Most articles have been quantitative, but female authors have used qualitative methods more often than males. Writing about gender increased rather than decreased the likelihood of having used quantitative methods for both women and men. We suggest that papers focusing on gender and also using qualitative methods represented double nonconformity and hence were unlikely candidates for publication in mainstream journals.

GENDER AND PUBLISHING IN SOCIOLOGY

As in other fields, scholarly publication in sociology is not only the key to career success but also the route by which feminist analyses and perspectives become known to others in the discipline. A growing literature has analyzed womens and mens rates of publication, but the gender politics of the prepublication production of research and gender differences in reputation building after publication remain underexplored. This report reviews the current state of knowledge about sociological publishing at three phases: prepublication, the publication-seeking phase, and postpublication. It concludes with critical questions to be addressed in developing a comprehensive model of gender effects on sociological publishing.

Race, Gender, and the Wage Gap Comparing Faculty Salaries in Predominately White and Historically Black Colleges and Universities

Using the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the authors compare the gender pay gap at predominantly white institutions (PWIs) with the gap at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Also, within the HBCU milieu, they examine how class of the institution has an impact on pay gaps. First, they find that HBCUs do seem to have a smaller gap but that pay for all faculty at HBCUs is lower than in PWIs. Second, the gap is only significantly smaller in the rank of associates. Third, the gap is smaller at the associate rank because men make less money in HBCUs than they do in PWIs. Fourth, elite HBCUs are more similar to PWIs than to HBCUs in terms of their gender pay gap. Race, class, and gender effects must be taken into account to understand patterns of wage equity across these institutions. The greater gender equity at HBCUs is apparent because of the absence of the “mens bonus, ” which is prevalent in PWIs and elite HBCUs.

Penalties and premiums: The impact of gender, marriage, and parenthood on faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields

The prevalence of gender wage gaps in academic work is well documented, but patterns of advantage or disadvantage linked to marital, motherhood, and fatherhood statuses have been less explored among college and university faculty. Drawing from a nationally representative sample of faculty in the US, we explore how the combined effects of marriage, children, and gender affect faculty salaries in science, engineering and mathematics (SEM) and non-SEM fields. We examine whether faculty members’ productivity moderates these relationships and whether these effects vary between SEM and non-SEM faculty. Among SEM faculty, we also consider whether placement in specific disciplinary groups affects relationships between gender, marital and parental status, and salary. Our results show stronger support for fatherhood premiums than for consistent motherhood penalties. Although earnings are reduced for women in all fields relative to married fathers, disadvantages for married mothers in SEM disappear when controls for productivity are introduced. In contrast to patterns of motherhood penalties in the labor market overall, single childless women suffer the greatest penalties in pay in both SEM and non-SEM fields. Our results point to complex effects of family statuses on the maintenance of gender wage disparities in SEM and non-SEM disciplines, but married mothers do not emerge as the most disadvantaged group.

Productivity of Women Scholars and Gender Researchers: Is Funding a Factor?.

Articles by women scholars and proportions of articles focused on gender have increased steadily in major sociology journals since 1974. Women are more heavily represented as journal authors than as members of graduate-program departments, the institutional bases where most published work originates. We consider whether funding might account for these patterns by examining acknowledgement of support in published articles. We find no significant relationships among author gender, article topic, and notation of internal funding. Male-authored articles focused on nongender topics acknowledge external funding significantly more often than women-authored works and articles focused on gender written by women or men. Funding patterns therefore do not appear to account for increased productivity by women and gender researchers.

State Abortion and Nonmarital Birthrates in the Post—Welfare Reform Era The Impact of Economic Incentives on Reproductive Behaviors of Teenage and Adult Women

The impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, or welfare reform) on the economic circumstances of women and children has received substantial research attention, but provisions of the act that attempt to influence womens reproductive behaviors have been much less studied. Provisions of PRWORA encouraged states to intensify efforts to restrict access to abortion and to decrease rates of nonmarital births, particularly among teenagers. Using state-level data, this study analyzes the effects of state policies enacted in the wake of welfare reform, controlling for prior rates of abortion and unwed births. The authors find that economic-based incentives have only minor, and inconsistent, influence on statewide rates of abortion and nonmarital births in 2000. Results are consistent with feminist scholarship proposing that noneconomic considerations are more central in womens decision making about reproduction than economic factors.

Competitive Climates, Athletic Skill, and Children's Status in After-School Recreational Sports Programs

Relationships among competition, athletic skill, and social relationships among children have received considerable attention from social psychologists and have also sparked considerable public debate. Most studies of these relationships have concentrated on sports programs involving upper elementary or older boys. This field work study examined these relationships in three after-school recreation programs for children ages 5 to 8. Although all programs professed to stress skills development over competition, teams act varied substantially in competitive climates. Competitive environments heightened the tendency for athletic skill to function as a generalized status element in peer networks. After-school sports programs contributed to the reproduction of athletic skill as a basis of peer status, even for young children.

Expected Rewards of Practice and Personal Life Priorities of Men and Women Medical Students

Abstract Men and women medical students choose different medical specialties. These different choice patterns are sometimes explained as results of varying personal and professional orientations of men and women. This study examines this explanation through log-linear analysis of questionnaire responses of 266 men and women who are recent medical school graduates. Women and men show greater similarities than differences in expected rewards from medical practice, although men value extrinsic rewards, money, and authority more so than do women. Furthermore, men and women do not differ on expected personal life priorities for the years beyond medical school. Theories which consider differences in womens and mens personal orientations as the primary explanation for sex distributions across medical specialties receive little support. Alternative explanations are considered.

From the Book Review Editors

In our second editorial as co–book review editors ofGender & Society, we want to identify and reflect on critical experiences in our development as feminist sociologists. In addition, we want to consider how sources of support and guidance have shaped our professional journeys and broadly relate those influences to the mission of feminist publications, such as Gender & Society and the SWS Network News. We found a common thread in our respective experiences in mentoring and comentoring. Mentoring is based on the fundamental principle that every person counts (Byrne 1993) or, as Agent Scully told Agent Mulder in an episode of The X-Files, “because no one gets there alone” (Jipson and Paley 2000). This complex relationship can take different forms and can involve counseling, provision of information, role modeling, advising, and advocating (Jipson and Paley 2000). Mentoring is a vital component of successful professional development, and lack of a mentoring relationship can impede advancement, especially for women and minorities (Chandler 1996.) Traditionally, a mentor was perceived as one of senior status and experience who guided an inexperienced protégé. Recent evidence suggests that this model has limited benefits because it is essentially a power relationship in which the role of the protégé is largely one of a subordinate (Chandler 1996; Kochan and Trimble 2000). As Collins (1983) has written, mentoring can be a context for co-optation and for the silencing of voices that do not conform to prevailing disciplinary norms. Emergent forms of mentoring are more collaborative and reciprocal, and feminists have been at the forefront of such approaches. Both parties are colearners in a process of self-discovery, and the relationship is less hierarchical and individualistic and more inclusive (Hargreaves and Fullan 2000). Junior scholars can be mentored by peers, by scholars in disciplines other than their own, by those outside the academy, and by written works that provide guidance and support not available personally or locally. “Because no one gets there alone,” we each have benefited in various ways from mentoring and comentoring. Here for the moment, we need to move to separate voices, with Josephine speaking first. In my case as an international student, I benefited greatly from the mentoring of one of my professors at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Doris Slesinger. She took substantial interest in my professional development when I was writing my dissertation. She mentored me into the profession of sociology by encouraging me to write research papers, prepare conference papers, and observe her giving local presentations. She also helped me to prepare for the job market. Another important mentor was Linda Grant, whom I met

From the Book Review Editors: Disciplines and Borderlands

As book review editors for nearly three years, we have spent a great deal of time pondering disciplinary boundaries and borderlands. One of the most difficult tasks we face is deciding which of the numerous books we receive and hear about should be reviewed in Gender & Society. Making these decisions puts us at the heart of an ongoing debate about disciplinary boundaries and the relationship of feminist scholarship to traditional academic disciplines that affects most Sociologists for Women in Society members and contributors to Gender & Society. Does feminist social science scholarship benefit from sharp disciplinary boundaries and a clear identity as a distinctive field of inquiry within academia, or is it best and most vital when the boundaries are fuzzy and fluid, with substantial interdisciplinary interchange? Proponents of the sharp boundary argument point to the advantages in academic institutions of full-fledged, legitimated disciplinary status. In most colleges and universities, academic disciplines and departments are the units around which institutional rewards, privileges, and power are distributed. Gender scholarship increasingly is recognized as a distinctive approach to knowing, despite variations of perspective and method among its practitioners. Sharp boundaries, and a legitimate place on the academic map, help to stabilize programs and careers. Recognized disciplines also exercise stronger influence on important decisions about hiring, tenure and promotion, salary, and the selection of candidates for administrative posts. Gender & Society, as a widely read and very successful journal, is one example of prestige and influence that transcends single institutions. Although it draws readers and contributors from many disciplines, the core group guiding the journal has always been sociologically trained feminist researchers. Gone are the days when tenure and promotion committees could dismiss the journal as “a ladies’ magazine.” Gender & Society now has a reputation for excellence extending well beyond North America and a high citation rate. This status benefits contributors, as well as those serving in editorial leadership posts. Despite these obvious advantages of disciplinary status, some feminist scholars worry about the consequences of the increasing institutionalization of feminist scholarship, locally and beyond. As Judith Stacey (1995) noted, incorporation of feminist work into disciplines often results in a decline in what she termed interdisciplinary scholarship “in the borderlands.” While reflecting on her admittedly unusual academic career, Stacey raised doubts about whether sociology, or any other existing discipline, is the right place “to excavate a feminist revolution.” She wrote,