Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In 1972 the Congress of the United States passed Title IX which prohibited sexual discrimination in education. Since that time, researchers have been evaluating the progress made to date in the effort to eliminate gender differences in the academic environment. Some progress has been made on this front; however, gender inequity continues to plague the university setting today with inequities ranging over schools, programs, and departments. In an effort to shed new light on current issues and see how issues have changed over time, this paper will do a longitudinal study of gender issues in the domestic and international university settings. An analysis will be done both at the Ph.D. program level looking at gender differences in degree participation and completion and in the university academic environment to investigate gender faculty salary differences by school type, rank, academic qualification, hiring situation, and teaching area over the 2001 to 2010 time period. The data for this study will pull from universities around the world using information from The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools in Business International (AACSB). AACSB International was founded in 1916 and is the longest serving global accrediting body for business schools that offer undergraduate, master's, and doctoral degrees in business and accounting. According to the AACSB website, the AACSB schools as of the year 2010 numbered 579 separate institutions that were represented in 35 different countries around the world. Of these 579 schools, seven percent were undergraduate institutions only, 8 percent were graduate only programs, and 85 percent of the universities conferred degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate level. The data in this sample is derived from two surveys submitted by AACSB members. Survey one is the AACSB International Business School Questionnaire (BSQ) and the second is the AACSB International Salary Survey (SS). Prior Research For much of the past four decades, researchers have looked at the gender equity issues in the college and university setting raising many different questions. Over this time equity issues at both the Ph.D. program level and the academic university/college settings have been identified. According to data from the Ph.D. Completion Project (2008), which was the largest analysis to date of data on doctoral students put out by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), degree completion rates vary substantially by gender, race/ethnicity, and citizenship. The project evaluated the data submitted by 24 universities in the U.S. and Canada on 19,000 students who entered Ph.D. programs in 1992-93 through 1997-98. The report showed that, after 10 years, the cumulative completion rates for men, whites, and international students are higher than those for women, other U.S. racial/ethnic groups, and domestic students, respectively. While women have worked to become a larger part of the university setting, the 2008 AACSB Business school faculty trends showed that overall women as of the end of year 20062007 made up approximately 27% of all full-time faculty in US based business institutions. When broken out by rank the 2007-2008 results showed the instructors with the highest percentage at 41.8% followed by assistant professor 36.4%, associate professor 26.7%, and full professor 15.1%. Females as a percentage of full-professors have generally stayed stagnant at the 15% level while looking at the same data from the 2004-2005 years. This research shows that while women have become a larger part of the university setting they appear to be so at the lower ranks. West and Curtis (2006) evaluate data primarily from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)'s annual Faculty Compensation Survey (FCS) for the 2005-2006 academic year. Their research provided data on faculty gender equity that were specific and comparable for a wide range of college and university campuses, with the goal of invigorating collaborative discussions at the local level. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".