Faculty promotion evaluation and gender equity in business schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to address the fairness of promotion evaluation (appointments to the rank of full professor) process in Canadian business schools as perceived by tenured business female faculty. Our analysis is underscored by two studies with two different data collection methods (survey data analysis, policy content analysis) and driven by procedural justice as the main theoretical lens. The first study addresses the perspective of our survey participants ( N=198) by revealing that they believe the process of promotion evaluations is fair. Intrigued by this result, we undertook a second study to review the language of faculty collective agreements in these schools to explain partially why our participants believe in the fairness of promotion evaluations. The language of these faculty collective agreements suggests that the above result makes sense considering that they regulate promotion evaluations and decisions. However, this does not mean that the process of faculty promotions is free of gender discrimination as these faculty collective agreements have not addressed all the antecedents and predictors of gender inequity per se. The findings of this article are relevant because the issue of the underrepresentation of female faculty as related to promotion in senior academic ranks in Canadian business schools is under-researched. The existing studies on faculty promotion evaluations are too general and have not specifically addressed the fairness of business schools’ faculty promotion evaluation systems from the perspective of tenured business female faculty. Plus, the relevance of the findings of this article lies in the fact that contrary to most general studies on female faculty experience with promotion evaluations at Canadian universities and internationally, these findings suggest that such experience in Canadian business schools is not always associated with gender discrimination and negative perspectives among female faculty.
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".