Tenure Track Policy Increases Representation of Women in Senior Academic Positions, but Is Insufficient to Achieve Gender Balance.
Underrepresentation of women in senior positions is a persistent problem in universities worldwide, and a wide range of strategies to combat this situation is currently being contemplated. One such strategy is the introduction of a tenure track system, in which decisions to promote scientific staff to higher ranks are guided by a set of explicit and transparent criteria, as opposed to earlier situations in which decisions were based on presumably more subjective impressions by superiors. We examined the effect of the introduction of a tenure track system at Wageningen University (The Netherlands) on male and female promotion rates. We found that chances on being promoted to higher levels were already fairly equal between men and women before the tenure track system was introduced, and improved-more for women than for men-after the introduction of the tenure track system. These results may partly be explained by affirmative actions, but also by the fact that legacy effects of historical discrimination have led to a more competitive female population of scientists. In spite of these outcomes, extrapolations of current promotion rates up to 2025 demonstrate that the equal or even higher female promotion rates do not lead to substantial improvement of the gender balance at higher levels (i.e., associate professor and higher). Since promotion rates are small compared to the total amount of staff, the current distribution of men and women will, especially at higher levels, exhibit a considerable degree of inertia-unless additional affirmative action is taken.
Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Martha M
MM
Bakker
Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Maarten H
MH
Jacobs
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 18;10(11):e0143093
26580565
Lancet. 2012 Aug 4;380(9840):474
22863053
Sci Am. 1987 Feb;256(2):119-25
3810117
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 20;355(3):281-7
16855268
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 15;112(50):E6828-9
26635232
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 22;8(7):e66212
23894278
Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan;23(1):4-6
17963996
Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2014 Aug;35(8):371-3
25086743
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 May 26;112(21):6595-600
25964337
Soc Stud Sci. 2011 Jun;41(3):385-409
21879527
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 22;112(51):E7036-7
26647179
Scientometrics. 2016;106:143-162
26798162
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Oct 6;112(40):12349-53
26392544
Nature. 1997 May 22;387(6631):341-3
9163412
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 9;109(41):16474-9
22988126
Science. 2015 Jan 16;347(6219):262-5
25593183
Nature. 2013 Mar 7;495(7439):22-4
23467149
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 15;112(50):E6830
26635231
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007 Sep;16(7):998-1003
17903076