Introduction
Institutions of higher learning are currently encountering numerous
financial problems. These problems present several dilemmas for
faculty such as questions concerning their workload and the demand
for more accountability of how their time is spent. Women and junior
faculty are the two groups most negatively affected by the demand
for greater productivity and the demand for accountability (Meyer,
1998). One approach to handling this financial crisis is for faculty
to seek external funds to support their research projects. Limited
research dollars are available so faculty must be skillful in how
to acquire them and must be aggressive when competing for them.
Acquiring and competing for these limited funds are important issues
to faculty because tenure and promotion decisions are based on successful
research.
Background
Research showed that women faculty members research interests
and agenda differ from that of their male counterparts. Women do
not publish their research to the same degree as men (Bellas &
Toutkoushian, 1999; Harper, Baldwin, Gansneder, & Chronister,
2001; Schneider, 1998; Tesch, Wood, Helwig, & Nattinger, 1995)
and married women publish even less than unmarried women (Bellas
& Toutkoushian, 1999). There are many views in the literature
that attempt to explain why differences exist between men and women
faculty concerning their research agenda. Bentley (1990) explained
one such view by saying that there are gender differences in faculty
seeking grants and publishing manuscripts. Bentley was uncertain
as to why these differences exist, but suggested that they are due
to the fact that women are not concentrated in research institutions.
Therefore, if they are not at research institutions, they are less
likely to have grants funded (Bentley, 1990). Bellas and Toutkoushian
(1999) indicated that women faculty who conduct research may work
at a slightly slower pace, spend more time on research, feel less
confident about it, and take more care with it than men faculty.
Kovar (1985) stated that women in higher education are stereotyped
as less scholarly, less serious, and less interested in research
than their male counterparts. Also, some researchers claim that
attributes of successful researchers are independence, assertiveness,
and confidence, and traditionally women do not possess these attributes
(Harper et al., 2001).
Another view concerning gender differences in faculty research was
described by Keim and Erickson (as cited by Harper et al., 2001).
They stated that,
Women are less likely to receive support for their research efforts
because their
work is often seen as less valuable. They claim that despite supposedly
blind
review processes, gender bias on the part of reviewers still exists,
resulting
in higher rejection rates for women. These obstacles, coupled with
a greater
tendency to abandon articles that have been rejected for publication
rather
than resubmit them, contributes to lower publication rates. (p.
250-251)
In research conducted by Schneider (1998), women faculty were asked
their perceptions about, Why dont women publish as much
as men? The findings of his research provided insights into
how women faculty perceived this issue:
Some blame inequity in academe [and] others say quantity doesnt
matter
.There are women who publish a lot, but somehow they
get overlooked
.The statistics measure quantity, not quality
.The
academics who study faculty productivity typically ignore the humanities,
where women abound
.Once in graduate school, women complain,
they have a tougher time finding senior scholars to be mentors
.[And
finally,] trying to figure out why women write less than men is
like searching for a smoking gun on a firing range. There is no
single cause. (p. 1-7)
Conceptual Framework
The framework for the present study was based on previous research
of tenured and untenured women faculty at colleges of education
of Association of American University institutions (Boyer &
Cockriel, 1999, 1998). Specifically, the findings of this research
revealed that women faculty lacked the necessary training to pursue
grants and were unaware of how to initiate the process. Subsequently,
this lack led to women faculty submitting fewer grant proposals
which ultimately affected their success in securing promotion and
tenure. The findings also showed that graduate programs and academic
administrators would do well to develop programs that provide graduate
students and junior faculty the necessary skills to successfully
compete for grant dollars.
Despite previous research, little is known about factors that influence
women and junior facultys pursuit of external grant funding
across academic disciplines. This is important since there is evidence
that faculty in the hard sciences spend more time writing grant
proposals than teaching (Fairweather, 1993; Smart & Elton, 1982;
Somers et al., 1998) because they have more research funds readily
available to them (Creswell & Bean, 1981; Somers et al., 1998).
Inquiry into this area of research will provide evidence about whether
findings of earlier research within colleges of education are relevant
to the experiences of women junior faculty across academic disciplines.
Furthermore, since researchers contend that women do not publish
as much as men, it is necessary to understand the factors that both
motivate and hinder womens success in pursuing external grant
dollars.
As suggested by Johnsrud and Wunsch (1991), research is needed to
understand how women faculty, especially junior faculty, overcome
barriers and become successful in academia. Therefore, the purpose
of the present study is to examine both motivating and hindering
factors that influence women junior facultys pursuit of external
grant dollars across academic disciplines. This research addresses
the question, Are there any differences in the factors that
motivate and hinder female junior faculty at a Midwestern Research
I university in the pursuit of grants across academic disciplines
compared with their male counterparts? Additionally, junior
faculty were asked about the type of grant-seeking training they
received prior to their academic appointment. It is important to
note that, for this research, the pursuit of grants is defined as
a workload activity that falls under the umbrella of research.
Procedures and Measures
Measures. The questions were designed around a four-point Likert
scale that consisted of the categories (a) very important, (b) moderately
important, (c) marginally important, and (d) not important. The
four-point scale was dichotomized into two categories for ease of
comparison. Therefore, very important and moderately important responses
were combined to reflect the motivators and barriers that were important
to faculty in their pursuit of grants. Similarly, marginally important
and not important responses were combined to reflect the motivators
and barriers that were not important to faculty in their pursuit
of grants. Motivating factors included variables such as having
personnel support when proposals were funded, having travel money
for conferences, and having contact with funding sources (see Table
1 for the complete list). Also, barriers included variables such
as unlikely chance of getting funded, pursuing grants being too
time consuming, and too many committee assignments (see Table 2
for the complete list).
Data analyses. Chi square tests of independence were used to analyze
the data with the SAS statistical package. The sample was designed
to have an alpha level of p < 0.05.
Results
This research project is an effort to better understand factors
influencing women junior faculty engaged in grant proposal submission,
but specifically to determine if there are gender differences for
these faculty. The findings of this research discovered that the
top three motivating factors (opportunity to research new information,
consideration in tenure or promotion decisions, and building professional
reputation as a researcher) and the top barrier (heavy teaching
load) were the same for both men and women junior faculty. Significant
gender differences were evident in two motivating factors; more
flexibility in how time is allocated, and contact with funding sources.
Also, gender differences were evident in two hindering factors;
inadequate support available to submit a grant in a timely manner,
and lack of clarity in the colleges expectation. The results
of this research suggest that administrators should be willing to
mentor, and also make training sessions available for women who
are new to the grant process.
Kovars (1985) research uncovered inequities in the academy
favor male faculty compared to their female counterparts. Specifically,
she argued that the scales for determining tenure are tilted to
favor male faculty members. However, Kovar also found that women
faculty, despite the stereotypes, were interested in conducting
research, publishing, becoming independent scholars, and being committed
to each other. Women were more likely than male faculty to attend
seminars to improve communication skills to improve teaching. On
the other hand, male faculty members published more articles in
non-refereed journals, received significantly more reductions in
teaching loads to do research, developed more sources of funding
for continued research, and attended more seminars designed to improve
advising.
A list of all junior faculty members from a university was obtained
from the graduate school and their addresses were obtained from
the campus faculty directory. The college of education faculty was
excluded from the list because previous research was conducted with
this group. Junior faculty in all disciplines at the institution
were sent a cover letter and the questionnaire via campus mail.
Procedures recommended by Dillman (1978), with some modifications,
were used to mail and to follow-up with faculty. Approximately thirty
days after the initial mailing, a follow-up letter was sent via
email as a reminder. After three weeks, a third follow-up letter
was sent to all prospective participants via email with a copy of
the questionnaire attached.
The purpose of this research is to determine factors that motivate
and/or hinder female junior faculty at a Midwestern Research I university
in their attempt to secure external grant funds compared with their
male counterparts. The survey was sent to 205 junior members of
the faculty via campus mail, and useable responses were received
from 137 (67%) faculty. Of the junior faculty responding to the
survey, 85 (62%) were men and 52 (38%) were women. The academic
disciplines were categorized into five areas and respondents were
as follows: behavioral sciences, 11 (8.1%); biological sciences,
47 (34.8%); humanities, 16 (11.9%); physical sciences, 30 (22.2%);
and social sciences 31 (23%) excluding education.
One finding of this research indicated that the motivating variables,
which included opportunity to research new information, consideration
in tenure or promotion, building professional reputation as a researcher,
and personnel support when proposals are funded, were important
to the majority of women faculty members responding to the survey.
Of the fifteen motivating factors presented in this survey, thirteen
of them were important for women faculty. Moreover, ten out of the
fifteen variables were important for the men. The variables that
were important for both groups were so for more than 50% of the
respondents (see Table 1). The significant motivating factors with
gender differences using a Chi Square test were: more flexibility
in how time is allocated (2 =10.248, p= .017) and contact with funding
sources (2 =12.465, p = .006).
Another finding of this research was that the most important hindering
factor was heavy teaching loads for both female and male junior
faculty (67% for women respondents and 56% for men respondents).
The next important hindering factor was lack of knowledge of funding
sources as stated by 52% of the women and 46% of the men. The significant
hindering factors with gender differences using a Chi Square test
were: inadequate support to submit a grant in a timely manner (2=
9.352, p= .025) and lack of clarity in the colleges expectations
(2= 9.086, p= .020) (see Table 2).
The survey also consisted of three questions, two of which were
open-ended. The questions were an attempt to better understand the
type of training junior faculty received, if any, prior to their
academic appointment. The three questions were (a) Do you feel that
you have been adequately trained to pursue grants? (b) Why or why
not? Please explain. And (c) What would you suggest to the university
to make sure that assistant professors are adequately trained in
pursuing grants?
In response to the question, What would you suggest to the
university..., the most prevalent responses were to
mentor junior faculty, [to] offer more grant writing
seminars and or workshops, and to offer workshops on
budget preparation and how to locate funding sources. Three
times as many men as women respondents stated that mentoring of
junior faculty was important. Two times as many men as women stated
that the university should offer workshops on budget preparation
and how to locate funding sources.
This research project was an effort to further understand factors
associated with grant proposal writing among junior faculty across
multiple academic disciplines at a Midwestern Research I university.
A second purpose was to determine whether there were gender differences
among junior faculty who engaged in grant proposal writing. Previous
research conducted by Monahan (1992) pointed out that women faculty
members were more apt to emphasize the need for technical assistance
in searching for grant opportunities, writing proposals, preparing
budgets, and obtaining administrative signatures. These factors
differ from the responses of the women in this study in which thirteen
of fifteen variables were important for more than 50% of the respondents
(see Table 1).
Qualitative Analysis
Only 40% of the respondents answered these qualitative questions.
In reference to the question, Do you feel that you have been
adequately trained to pursue grants? the most prevalent responses
from those who answered yes were that they had some graduate
preparation or post doctoral training, good mentoring,
and some were self-trained. The respondents who answered
no to these questions explained that it was due to lack of
graduate school preparation, lack of time, and
lack of mentoring, (which was the most prevalent response).
Additionally, twice as many of the male respondents answered yes,
stating that they felt they were adequately trained and mentored
to pursue grants.
In this study, two times more men stated that they felt they were
adequately trained and mentored to pursue grants than their female
counterparts. Moreover, the men in this study submitted more proposals
and had almost three times as many proposals funded as women. Also,
this research showed that male junior faculty allocated more of
their time conducting research than did females.
Discussion
Similarities in the findings from this research and previous research
conducted by Boyer and Cockriel (1999) suggested that faculty in
both studies felt that the two motivating variables, consideration
in tenure or promotion and building a professional reputation were
important. Although these variables were important for both males
and females when securing grants, it is the female respondents who
stated that they were not adequately trained or mentored to pursue
grants. This deficiency of training and mentoring can negatively
affect women junior facultys success in their academic career.
But why is it that the males in this study stated that they are
getting the mentoring and training that is needed to be successful
faculty and the females are not? This difference is evident in the
number of grants submitted and funded by males. Answering this question
and understanding this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this research,
but requires further investigation. These findings should compel
faculty and administrators to be cognizant of gender differences
and to pay attention to these differences as they relate to women
junior faculty in the academy and to female graduate students.
Administrators can play unique roles in assisting women junior faculty
in successfully seeking external funds by providing a mentor to
both junior faculty and graduate students new to the grant process
and by making available and supporting training sessions in areas
such as grant writing/seeking and budgeting programs. Administrators
will find that mentoring and training of women junior faculty will
be worth the investment to their organization.
Today, research agenda is important for tenure and post-tenure reviews
at all institutional levels and no longer at research institutions
alone. The question to ask is, what is required of institutions,
and more specifically graduate programs, to ensure that women are
adequately mentored and trained to be productive and successful
in pursuing their research agenda? It behooves administrators to
consider the motivating factors discussed in this research as a
starting place for assisting their junior faculty, especially women,
in becoming successful academicians.
The findings of this research concerning hindering factors (heavy
teaching loads, too many committee assignments, and advising students)
are consistent with previous research, although there were no gender
differences. Furthermore, these three factors were important for
more than 50% of the women respondents but only heavy teaching load
was important for 56% of the male respondents (see Table 2). Consequently,
consideration of women junior facultys teaching load, student
advising, and committee assignment should be monitored since they
are barriers to women pursuing grants. At some institutions, female
faculty tend to have more committee assignments and advise more
students than male faculty. Therefore, it is not surprising to see
how these factors are important barriers when pursuing grants to
the women faculty at this research institution.
Research shows that prior experiences positively influence future
tasks, such as the graduate work of junior faculty. It is necessary
for junior faculty members to enter the academy with some basic
training from their graduate work to increase their chance of success
in their career, which increases persistence at the institution.
Grant writing is no exception to this concept. Prior experience
in proposal writing preparation during graduate school encourages
faculty to seek external support and also contributes to the success
of that attempt as faculty members (Harris, 1985). Blackburn and
Lawrence (1995) explained, In the same way that prior publication
rate was a strong predictor for current publications, so was prior
proposal writing a strong predictor for grant getting (p.
164). Golde and Dore (as cited in Austin, 2002) argued that graduate
students (90%) were prepared to conduct research but the majority
(62%) lacked skills in the process of securing grants.
Junior faculty must juggle multiple tasks and must integrate these
tasks into their personal lives (Austin, 2002). Traditionally, women
are primary caregivers in the family. For future research, other
variables to consider are the marital status of faculty and the
number of dependents in relationship to the effect these variables
have on the research agenda of women junior faculty. Additionally,
thought should be given to whether or not women junior faculty are
spending the time they need and desire to conduct research and secure
grants. If not, attention should be given to the barriers. To tie
into this concept of how time is spent, the variable, flexibility
in how time is allocated, requires further investigation. For this
study, the majority of the women stated that this variable was an
important motivator when pursuing grants.
References
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty:
Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The
Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122.
Bellas, M. L., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations
and research productivity: Gender, race and family effects. The
Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 367-390.
Bentley, R. J. (1990). Faculty research performance over time
and its relationship to sources of grant support. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work:
Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
University Press.
Boyer, P. G., & Cockriel, I. (1998). Factors influencing grant
writing: Perceptions of tenured and nontenured faculty. Journal
of Society of Research Administrators, 29(4), 61-68.
Boyer, P. G., & Cockriel, I. (1999). Women faculty pursuing
grants: Gender differences. Available at: http://www.advancingwomen.com/public_html/boyer.html
Creswell, J., & Bean, J. (1981). Research output, socialization,
and the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education, 15, 69-91.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Fairweather, J. (1993). Faculty reward structures: Toward institutional
and professional homogenization. Research in Higher Education,
34, 603-623.
Harper, E. P., Baldwin, R. G., Gansneder, B. G., & Chronister,
J. L. (2001). Full-time women faculty off the tenure track: Profile
and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 237-257.
Harris, K. (1985). Effect of prior experience on decision to submit
proposals. Journal of the Society of Research Administrators,
16(4), 29-35.
Johnsrud, L. K. & Wunsch, M. (1991, October). Barriers to
success in academic life: Perceptions of faculty women in a colleague
pairing program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Boston, MA.
Kovar, S. K. (1985). Women faculty scholarly productivity.
East Lansing, MI: National Center
for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No.
ED278327.
Meyer, K. A. (1998). Faculty workload studies: Perspectives, needs,
and future
directions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 26(1), 1-101.
Monahan, T. C. (1993). Barriers and inducements to grant-related
activity by New Jersey state college faculty. Journal of the
Society of Research Administrators, 25(4), 9-25.
Schneider, A. (1998). Why dont women publish as much as men?
The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Smart, J., & Elton, C. (1982). Goal orientations of academic
departments: A test of Biglans model. Research in Higher
Education, 17, 213-229.
Somers, P., Cofer, J., Austin, J., Inman, D., Martin,
T., Rook, S., & Wilkinson, L. (1998). Faculty and staff: The
weather radar of campus climate. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 35-52.
Tesch, B. J., Wood, H. M., Helwig, A. L., & Nattinger, A. B.
(1995). Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine: Glass
ceiling or sticky floor. The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 273 (13), 1022 (4).
Table 1 Motivating
Factors by Gender for Junior Faculty When Pursuing Grants ______________________________________________________________________________
Table
2 Hindering Factors by Gender for Junior Faculty When Pursuing Grants
______________________________________________________________________________
|