Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent statistics reported in the Digest of Education Statistics (2010, Table 303) show that more women than men earned doctoral degrees. Notably, as shown in the 2008-09 study, of the 67,716 degrees earned, 32,279 were by males and 35,437 were by females. Additionally, of the total degrees males earned there were 17,094 by Whites, 1,484 by Blacks, 1,092 by Hispanics, and 1,770 by Asian/Pacific Islanders. For females there were 22,554 by Whites, 2,950 by Blacks, 1,448 by Hispanics, and 2,105 by Asian/Pacific Islanders. This higher number of doctoral degrees earned by women suggests that they are credentialed for an almost equal number of faculty positions available in academe. An examination of Table 249 (Digest of Education Statistics, 2008) did not reveal a near equal number of males and females in those faculty positions. On the contrary, Table 249 shows that for year 2007 there were 703,463 faculty positions divided among six professorial categories (Professor - often referred to as Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor, Lecturer, and Other). Overwhelmingly, males (409,115) outpaced females (294,348) in these faculty positions. For the highest faculty rank (Professor - which is associated with a higher salary and access to information that may not be made available to lower ranked faculty), male faculty (127,488) outnumbered their female (45,907) counterparts. A further examination of these statistics shows that of the total (540,460) positions held by White faculty, there were 108,404 males and 39,463 female Professors. Of the total (37,930) Black faculty positions, 3,646 were held by males and 2,193 by female Professors. There were 24,975 total faculty positions held by Hispanics; ofthat number 2,874 were held by males and 1 ,254 by female Professors. There was a total of 53 ,66 1 Asian/Pacific Islanders faculty; ofthat number 1 0,01 8 were held by males and 2,22 1 by female Professors. This lower number of females at the highest ranked level indicates that they are not as privileged in academe as males. This becomes even more disturbing in recognizing that non- White females are a small fraction (total 5,668) of this professorial pool. Authors of articles in this special issue of The Negro Educational Review (NER) questioned why so few non- White females have been promoted and tenured in academe. Guest Editors Dr. Deirdre Cobb-Roberts and Dr. Vonzell Agosto and NER co-managing editor Dr. Shirley Biggs have labored diligently to give voice to issues related to the dismally low numbers of these women in the academy and the challenges they face in their quest to earn tenure and promotion to the highest academic rank. In addition, they direct attention to instances of the many exemplary scholarly and service contributions they make as members of the academy. Dr. Deirdre Cobb-Roberts is an associate professor in the Department of Psychological and Social Foundations at the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on the history of American higher education, teacher preparation, and the role of social justice in culturally responsive and responsible pedagogy. She has co-edited a book and published articles related to this research in the History of Education Quarterly, American Educational Research Journal, Journal of Teacher Education, International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, and Educational Considerations. Dr. Vonzell Agosto is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on curriculum, pedagogy, and the leadership preparation toward anti-oppressive education. She has presented her research at major conferences including the American Education Research Association, University Council for Educational Administration, Bergamo, and the Critical Race Studies in Education Conference. Dr. Agosto has published in journals such as the Journal of Negro Education, Teacher Education & Practice, and various handbooks. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".