Abstracts
Summary
In this case study of faculty at a large Canadian research university we examine the extent to which the gender pay gap varies with the formalization of remuneration practices and female representation within units.
We estimate the respective contributions to the gender pay gap of base pay, access to the rank of full professor, access to and amounts of market supplements, and Canada Research Chairs. These remuneration components differ in their degree of formalization. We also examine variations in the gender pay gap across departments with different proportions of females. The use of multilevel analysis allows for the estimation of the respective contributions of individual and institutional determinants of pay.
Mixed support is found for the first hypothesis – that the magnitude of the gap varies with the degree of formalization in remuneration components. The second hypothesis that, all else being equal, the level of female representation in a given context is negatively related to remuneration is supported. Overall, the results are consistent with continuing female pay disadvantage, even in an ostensibly ‘progressive’ institutional context.
Keywords:
- gender pay gap,
- organization,
- pay structure,
- female representation
Résumé
Cette étude de cas des professeurs d’une grande université de recherche canadienne vise à déterminer dans quelle mesure l’écart de rémunération selon le genre varie en fonction du degré de formalisation des pratiques de rémunération et de la représentation féminine au sein des unités.
Les contributions respectives de diverses composantes des écarts dans la rémunération sont examinées, soit le salaire de base, l’accès au rang de professeur titulaire, l’accès aux primes de marché et aux Chaires de recherche du Canada et leurs montants. Ces composantes de la rémunération sont caractérisées par des degrés variés de formalisation. Les variations de l’écart sont aussi examinées en fonction de la représentation relative des femmes professeurs au sein des unités. L’utilisation de l’analyse multiniveaux permet d’estimer les contributions respectives de déterminants individuels et institutionnels de la rémunération.
Les résultats sont mitigés en ce qui a trait à la première hypothèse selon laquelle l’ampleur de l’écart varie en fonction du degré de formalisation des composantes de la rémunération. La seconde hypothèse, selon laquelle, toutes choses étant égales par ailleurs, la représentation des femmes dans un contexte donné est négativement liée à la rémunération, est confirmée. Dans l’ensemble, les résultats concordent avec l’existence d’un désavantage féminin en ce qui a trait à la rémunération et ce, même dans un contexte institutionnel apparemment favorable à l’égalité.
Mots-clés :
- écart de rémunération selon le genre,
- organisation,
- structure salariale,
- représentation féminine
Resumen
El presente estudio de caso de profesores de una universidad de investigación canadiense pretende determinar en qué medida la brecha de remuneración según el género varía en función del grado de formalización de las prácticas de remuneración así como de la representación femenina al interior de las unidades académicas.
En nuestro artículo se examinan cuáles son las contribuciones de diversos componentes de la remuneración a esta brecha, entre ellas se encuentran: el salario-base, el acceso al rango de profesor titular, el acceso a las primas de mercado y a las Cátedras de investigación de Canadá y sus respectivos montos. Estos componentes de la remuneración están caracterizados por tener diferentes grados de formalización. Las variaciones de la brecha son también examinadas en función de la representación relativa de las mujeres profesoras en el seno de las unidades académicas. La utilización de un análisis multiniveles permite estimar las contribuciones respectivas de los determinantes individuales e institucionales de la remuneración.
Los resultados son mitigados en lo que respecta a la primera hipótesis, según la cual la magnitud de la brecha varía en función del grado de formalización de los componentes de la remuneración. La segunda hipótesis, según la cual a condiciones iguales, la representación femenina en un contexto dado está ligada negativamente a la remuneración, es confirmada. En su conjunto, nuestros resultados muestran la existencia de una desventaja femenina en cuanto a la remuneración, incluso dentro de un contexto institucional aparentemente favorable a la igualdad.
Palabras clave:
- brecha de remuneración según el género,
- organización,
- estructura salarial,
- representación femenina
Appendices
References
- Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender and Society, 4 (2), 139-158.
- American Sociological Association. 2004. “The Best Time to Have a Baby: Institutional Resources and Family Strategies among Early Career Sociologists.” ASA Research Brief. http://www.asanet.org/images/research/docs/pdf/Best%20Time%20to%20Have%20a%20Baby.pdf (accessed July 22, 2011).
- Armenti, Carmen. 2004. “Gender as a Barrier for Women with Children in Academe.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34 (1), 1-26.
- Barbezat, Debra A. and James W. Hughes. 2005. “Salary Structure Effects and the Gender Pay Gap in Academia.” Research in Higher Education, 46 (6), 621-640.
- Becker, Gary S. 1994. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Bellas, Marcia L. 1994. “Comparable Worth in Academia: The Effects on Faculty Salaries of the Sex Composition and Labor-Market Conditions of Academic Disciplines.” American Sociological Review, 59 (6), 807-821.
- Brass, Daniel J. 1985. “Men’s and Women’s Networks: A Study of Interaction Patterns and Influence in an Organization.” Academy of Management Journal, 28 (3), 327-343.
- CAUT (Canadian Association of University Teachers). 2004. CAUT Almanac of Post-Secondary Education in Canada. http://www.caut.ca/uploads/Almanac_2004.pdf (accessed Novem­ber 18, 2010).
- Cole, Jonathan R. and Harriet Zuckerman. 1984. “The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and Change in Patterns of Publication of Men and Women Scientists.” Advances in Motivation and Achievement. M. L. Maehr and M. W. Steinkamp, eds. Greenwich: JAI Press, 2, 217-258.
- Daune-Richard, Anne-Marie and Anne-Marie Devreux. 1992. “Rapports sociaux de sexe et conceptualisation sociologique.” Recherches féministes, 5 (2), 7-30.
- Doucet, Christine, Claire Durand and Michael R. Smith. 2008. “Who Gets Market Supplements? Gender Differences within a Large Canadian University.“ Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 38 (1), 67-103.
- Drago, Robert and Carol Colbeck. 2003. “Final Report from the Mapping Project: Exploring the Terrain of U.S. Colleges and Universities for Faculty and Families.” University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
- Elvira, Martha M. and Mary E. Graham. 2002. “Not Just a Formality: Pay System Formalization and Sex-related Earnings Effects.” Organization Science, 13 (6), 601-617.
- England, Paula. 1992. Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
- England, Paula. 2005. “Gender Inequality in Labor Markets: The Role of Motherhood and Segregation.” Social Politics, 12 (2), 264-288.
- Flaherty Manchester, Colleen, Lisa M. Leslie and Amit Kramer. 2010. “Stop the Clock Policies and Career Success in Academia.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 100 (2), 219-223.
- Ginther, Donna K. and Kathy J. Hayes. 2003. “Gender Differences in Salary and Promotion for Faculty in the Humanities.” Journal of Human Resources, 38 (1), 34-73.
- Ginther, Donna K. and Shulamit Kahn. 2009. “Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973–2001.” Science and Engineering Careers in the United States. R. B. Freeman and D. L. Goroff, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 163-194.
- Guppy, Neil. 1989. “Pay Equity in Canadian Universities, 1972-73 and 1985-86.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 26 (5), 743-758.
- Healy, Geraldine, Mustafa Özbilgin and Hanife Aliefendioglu. 2005. “Academic Employment and Gender: A Turkish Challenge to Vertical Sex Segregation.” European Journal of Industrial Relations, 11 (2), 247-264.
- Hox, Joop J. 2002. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Husu, Liisa. 2000. “Gender Discrimination in the Promised Land of Gender Equality.” Higher Education in Europe, 25 (2), 221-228.
- Kergoat, Danièle. 2005. “Rapports sociaux et division du travail entre les sexes.” Femmes, genre et sociétés: l’état des savoirs. M. Maruani, ed. Paris: La Découverte, 94-101.
- Kulis, Stephen. 1998. “Organizational Variations in Women Scientists’ Representation in Academia.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4 (1), 43-67.
- Marry, Catherine. 2003. “Genre et professions académiques: esquisse d’un état des lieux dans la sociologie.” Réflexions sur l’accès, la promotion et les responsabilités des hommes et des femmes à l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. http://www.lism.cnrs-mrs.fr/EB_files/Resources/DocFemmes/colloquesEHESS.pdf (accessed November 18, 2010).
- McKenna, Janis, Marie D’Iorio, Ann C. McMillan and Eric C. Svennson. 2002. “Report on the First International Conference on Women in Physics.” La physique au Canada, November/December, 17-23.
- Milgrom, Eva M. and Trond Petersen. 2006. “The Glass Ceiling in the United States and Sweden: Lessons from the Family-friendly Corner of the World, 1970-1990.” The Declining Signifi­cance of Gender? F. D. Blau, M. C. Brinton, and D. B. Grusky, eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 156-211.
- MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). 1999. “A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT.” http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html#TheStudy (accessed December 7, 2010).
- Morrison, Emory, Elizabeth Rudd and Maresi Nerad. 2011. “Onto, Up, Off the Academic Faculty Ladder: The Gendered Effects of Family on Career Transitions for a Cohort of Social Science Ph.D.’s.” The Review of Higher Education, 34 (4), 525-553.
- Nakhaie, Reza. 2002. “Gender Differences in Publication among University Professors in Canada.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 39 (2), 151-179.
- Nakhaie, Reza. 2007. “Universalism, Ascription and Academic Rank: Canadian Professors, 1987-2000.” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 44 (3), 361-386.
- Ornstein, Michael and Penni Stewart. 1996. “Gender and Faculty Pay in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Sociology, 21 (4), 461-481.
- Ornstein, Michael, Penni Stewart and Janice Drakich. 1998. “Situation du corps professoral féminin dans les universités canadiennes.” Revue trimestrielle de l’éducation, 5 (2), 9-29.
- Ornstein, Michael, Penni Stewart and Janice Drakich. 2007. “Promotion at Canadian Universities: The Intersection of Gender, Discipline, and Institution.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37 (3), 1-25.
- Perna, Laura W. 2005. “Sex Differences in Faculty Tenure and Promotion: The Contribution of Family Ties.” Research in Higher Education, 46 (3), 277-307.
- Porter, Stephen R., Robert. K. Toutkoushian and John V. Moore. 2008. “Pay Inequities for Recently-hired Faculty, 1988-2004.” Review of Higher Education, 34, 465-487.
- Reskin, Barbara F. 2003. “Including Mechanisms in our Models of Ascriptive Inequality.” American Sociological Review, 68 (1), 1-21.
- Reskin, Barbara F. and Patricia A. Roos. 1990. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
- Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2009. “Framed before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social Relations.” Gender and Society, 23 (2), 145-160.
- Rubery, Jill, Francesca Bettio, Colette Fagan, Friedrike Maier, Sigrid Quack and Paola Villa. 1998. “Payment Systems and Gender Pay Differentials: Some Societal Effects.” Equal pay in Europe? Closing the Gender Wage Gap. J. Rubery, ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1-31.
- Sandström, Ulf and Martin Hällsten. 2008. “Persistent Nepotism in Peer-Review.” Scientometrics, 74 (2), 175-189.
- Silvera, Rachel. 1996. Le salaire des femmes: toutes choses inégales... Les discriminations salariales en France et à l’étranger. Paris: La Documentation française.
- Sonnert, Gerhard and Gerald J. Holton. 1995. Gender Differences in Science Careers: The Project Access Study. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
- Sonnert, Gerhard and Gerald J. Holton. 1996. “Career Patterns of Women and Men in the Sciences.” American Scientist, 84 (1), 63-71.
- Statistics Canada. 2006. Census of Population. Statistics Canada catalogue No. 97-563-XCB2006062. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/index-eng.cfm (accessed November 18, 2010).
- Sussman, Deborah and Lahouaria Yssaad. 2005. “Les femmes dans l’enseignement universitaire.” L’emploi et le revenu en perspective, 6 (2), 6-21.
- Toutkoushian, Robert K., Marcia L. Bellas and John V. Moore. 2007. “The Interaction Effects of Gender, Race, and Marital Status on Faculty Salaries.” The Journal of Higher Education, 78 (5), 572-601.
- Umbach, Paul D. 2007. “Gender Equity in the Academic Labor Market: An Analysis of Academic Disciplines.” Research in Higher Education, 48 (2), 169-192.
- Warman, Casey, Frances Woolley and Christopher Worswick. 2010. “The Evolution of Male-Female Earnings Differentials in Canadian Universities, 1970-2001.” Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d’économique, 43 (1), 347-372.
- Wennerås, Christine and Agnes Wold. 1997. “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review.” Nature, 387 (6631), 341-343.
- Wolfinger, Nicholas H., Mary Ann Mason and Marc Goulden. 2008. “Problems in the Pipeline: Gender, Marriage, and Fertility in the Ivory Tower.” Journal of Higher Education, 79 (4), 389-405.
- Xie, Yu and Kimberlee A. Shauman. 2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and Outcomes. Cambridge, Mass.: London: Harvard University Press.