Wage disparities remain an important source of gender inequality in U.S. labor markets including those for college and university faculty. Pay differences may result from the allocation of women and men to different locations defined by institution types, academic divisions, and ranks where pay scales differ. It may also reflect unequal earnings of men and women in similar locations. Using national data, we examine whether institution type, academic division, and rank influence salary independently of each other or whether they are interdependent such that their effects on salary depend on how they are combined. We find that they are interdependent. We then consider how these interdependent locations mediate or moderate the relationship between gender and pay. We find more evidence of mediation. Women are disproportionately located in academic locations that pay less than locations where men are more often found. This work contributes to the understanding of gender segregation and its ramifications for the academy.

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.

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 women's 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 women's decision making about reproduction than economic factors.

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 “men's bonus, ” which is prevalent in PWIs and elite HBCUs.

"Chapter 9: African American Women and Small Business Start-up: Backgrounds, Goals and Strategies used by African American Women in the Initialization and Operation of Small Businesses" published on 27 Apr 2005 by Edward Elgar Publishing.

Recent revisionist scholarship on the history of sociology suggests that women scholars in the pre-World War II era made distinctive contributions to the development of the field of sociology. Most research, however, has focused on women prominent in their era, whose works might or might not be typical of all women who published during the same periods. Furthermore, few studies have made explicit comparisons between works by women and by men writing in this same era, so it has been difficult to sort out gender effects from historical era effects. This study explores writings by women and men in the first volumes of the American Journal of Sociology, from 1895 through 1940. As the oldest continuously published sociology journal in the U.S., AJS played a central role in the development of American sociology. We find that women authors were present in AJS from the earliest days, though their share of authorships never was large, and fluctuated year by year. Women’s work was distinctively different from that of men, with more women than men writing empirical, evidence-based articles, focusing on women, children, immigrants, the poor, and other have-not groups, and advocating for social reform. Writings of rank-and-file and prominent women sociologists were similar in methods, content, and form, and their distinctive contributions to sociology paralleled many of the concerns of feminist sociologists today.

Dans le but de permettre a leurs etudiants de relier les materiaux de la recherche sur le terrain a la conceptualisation analytique, les AA. ont utilise une approche qualitative basee sur le codage de donnees tirees d'un corpus de petites annonces de rencontres parues dans la presse

Women scientists have been described as occupying the \outer circle" of scienti c disciplines in the 1990s. Although women have made inroads into scienti c careers previously reserved for white males, women have had a more di cult time than men attaining in uential positions in science. The marginalization of women in science limits career options for women scientists and diminishes incorporation of women's perspectives into scienti c work. One frequently-discussed barrier to women's progress in science is access to e ective mentors during doctoral and postdoctoral training. Several studies have suggested that women scholars have a more di cult time nding mentors, collaborate less with mentors, and join research teams less often and later in their training when compared with men of similar talent and training. Further, some writers suggest that maintenance of successful cross-gender mentoring can be particularly problematic for men. Such relationships can be misperceived as inappropriate romantic liaisons, or junior women scholars might be perceived as \professional wives" of male mentors, capable of producing high quality work only under the mentor's guidance. Most studies of mentoring have focused only on the availability of mentors for women, not the dynamics of mentoring relationships. Further, little research has considered that mentoring might have negative as well as positive outcomes (e.g., the fostering of overdependence instead of autonomy or the formation of exploitative rather than productive relationships). This paper reports on a study designed to explore dynamics of mentoring relationships for women and men and the impact of mentoring on career growth for women and men in physics and astronomy in academic settings.

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 women's and men's 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.

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.

In the mid-1970s Goetz examined published work in educational anthropology and distinguished four conceptual approaches to gender and education. This article analyzes research in anthropology, education, feminist studies, psychology, and sociology appearing since Goetz's review. We find decreases in what Goetz termed “sex difference” studies, but increases in research on how gender relationships are created, maintained, and transformed through education. Social interactionism and sociocultural reproduction have become increasingly dominant as theoretical frameworks.

In the mid to early 1970s feminist writers raised four major criticisms about sociological research on women and expressed concern about the related issue of the discipline's treatment of women sociologists. Critics charged that sociological research underrepresented women as subjects, concentrated on research topics more central to men's than to women's lives, used concepts, paradigms, methods, and theories better portraying men's than women's lives, and used men and male experience as norms against which all social experience was assessed. Examination of published research in ten major sociology journals the 1974–83 period suggests that some concerns articulated in the critiques are reflected in subsequent published work, but others have had little or only limited impact. Findings suggest an association between women's participation as editors, board members, and authors in journals and the quantity and character of published gender articles.