Gendered Networks: Professional Connections of Science and Engineering Faculty

Abstract

Purpose

Gender differences in professional networks are said to explain disparities in career success and satisfaction in academia – particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines – yet little empirical research examines men and women’s satisfaction with networks. This study investigated gender differences in networks and network satisfaction among STEM faculty, examining gender differences in network size and density and in satisfaction with networks.

Methods

A web-based survey was administered to full-time tenured and tenure-track STEM faculty members at a major research university. Participants (N = 141) were queried about their network ties within the home department, outside the department but within the home university, and beyond the home university.

Findings

Faculty networks tended to be gender homophilous, with men reporting more ties with men and women reporting more ties with women. Women reported having networks as large and supportive as men’s reported networks, yet women reported significantly less satisfaction with their networks than did men. Women in departments with a critical mass of women faculty (15% or more) reported greater satisfaction with opportunities to collaborate with departmental colleagues.

Limitations

This research was confined to a single university and did not focus on negative interactions in networks, which may affect network satisfaction.

Implications

These findings argue for increasing women’s representation in university departments to above 15% and providing assistance to women in STEM departments without critical mass to ensure that they have adequate opportunities to collaborate in research.

Citation

Belle, D., Smith-Doerr, L. and O’Brien, L.M. (2014), "Gendered Networks: Professional Connections of Science and Engineering Faculty", Gender Transformation in the Academy (Advances in Gender Research, Vol. 19), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 153-175. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-212620140000019007