An investigation of several potential explanatory factors underlying the discrepant gender distributions within STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) field positions across different higher education institution types was undertaken. Data collection consisted of a main online survey of a nationally representative sample of STEM faculty members from a variety of institution types (N = 4, 195) and a follow-up survey of a subset of main survey respondents (N = 712). Regression analyses were conducted to assess predictors of initial job preference, work hours, and WFC (work-family conflict). Family friendliness ratings of research jobs, work centrality, and rated importance of the family friendliness of various jobs during one’s initial job search predicted initial job preferences and displayed significant gender differences, so these variables are supported as explanatory factors underlying the discrepant gender distributions across institution types. In predicting work hours, the presence of dependent children was associated with significantly reduced work hours among women but not among men. Workload emerged as the only consistent significant predictor of WFC. Comparisons of respondents employed at research-focused and teaching-focused institutions revealed nonsignificant or smaller than expected differences in workload, WFC, and work centrality. These findings run counter to reported faculty beliefs that jobs at teaching-focused institutions are more family friendly than those at research-focused institutions. Women reported adjusting their work goals and habits in order to accommodate their family goals, and vice versa, more frequently than did men. Women frequently reported heightened commitments to their families, relative to those reported by men, although in some cases the predicted gender differences were not observed or were of smaller magnitude than was expected. Analyses were conducted separately for two cohort groups created by splitting the sample at year in which PhD was earned. These two cohort groups differ in meaningful ways with respect to the relationships among the variables under investigation, such that many observed gender differences were isolated to, and/or were stronger within, the group of earlier PhD earners as compared to the group of later PhD earners. These results highlight how and why male and female faculty members differ in their early career planning decisions and their behaviors and adjustments within the context of their STEM higher education career paths.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the facilitators and barriers to women in STEM through comparison to men and non-STEM faculty members. The Pipeline Model and The Vanish Box model were examined to explain the underrepresentation of women in STEM. The current study, using the established facilitators and barriers to women in STEM by Bolton (2016), examined 12 categories that were identified through existing literature, critical incidents (CIs), and a subject-matter expert (SME). It was hypothesized that Teaching, Service, Research Funding, Mentoring, Professional Development, Administrative Leadership, Hiring Policies, New Child Leave/FMLA policies, and Promotion and Tenure Policies would be identified as barriers to academic careers in STEM disciplines more often than non-STEM disciplines and by women more often than by men. It was also hypothesized that Fairness of Policy Implementation and Practice, Other Policies, and Research Support other than Funding will be identified as a facilitators to women’s academic careers to academic careers in STEM disciplines more often than non-STEM disciplines and by women more often than by men. Two-hundred and forty-two participants completed a survey via Qualtrics that assessed facilitators and barriers to academic careers. Of those that completed the survey, only 134 were used in the analyses, as identification of sex and STEM status was essential for inclusion in the study. Results revealed that neither hypothesis was confirmed. Exploratory analyses examining the frequencies 12 categories as well as specific facilitators and barriers were conducted. The implications, limitations, and future directions for research were suggested.

The academic career path for tenure track faculty in most four-year universities in the United States allows those who earn tenure to make an individual choice about whether to pursue promotion to the rank of full professor. Limited research exists on the intrinsic motivators that individuals possess and draw upon to push past obstacles or challenges they encounter along their academic career journey. This study explored the role of intrinsic motivation in the decision of tenured associate professors to pursue promotion to full professor. Using a basic qualitative research design, this inquiry involved two in-depth interviews each with seven participants. Data analysis followed a thematic approach to make meaning of the participants’ thoughts and elicit findings guided by the research questions and the framework of career motivation theory encompassing three constructs: career resilience, career insight, and career identity. The findings from this study show both intrinsic motivations and external influences that are at play in the career decision process and illustrate how the tenured university professor’s career is a journey rife with obstacles that intrinsic motivation alone is insufficient to navigate. The implications of this study suggest ways to better support tenured faculty who aspire to promotion to full professor and offers advice for faculty who find themselves pondering this career decision with limited guideposts to direct them.