The impact of gender and perceived academic supervisory support on new faculty negotiation success
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The successful negotiation of one's first academic appointment contract can have lasting implications for academics and institutions alike. The present study investigated the impact of gender and perceived academic supervisor support (PASS) on negotiation outcomes using a sample of recently appointed assistant professors of management from internationally accredited business schools. Overall, women were less likely to engage in negotiations and were less effective than their male counterparts when bargaining for elements that revolved around direct compensation (e.g., salary, research funding). Further, it was observed that PASS moderated the relationship between gender and negotiation effectiveness such that highly supportive academic supervisors improved negotiation effectiveness for women, but had little impact for men. We conclude by outlining important practical implications of the current study and outline how interventions aimed at improving supervisor support in doctoral programmes may attenuate some of the observed negotiation discrepancies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it