Received: from bach.helios.nd.edu (bach.helios.nd.edu [129.74.216.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id KAA23507 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:20:48 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (eschaefe@localhost) by bach.helios.nd.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA06584 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:20:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 11:20:45 -0500 (EST) From: Beth Schaefer Caniglia Reply-To: Beth Schaefer Caniglia To: Sociology Graduate Students -- International Subject: Re: hiring In-Reply-To: <97Jun19.013821edt.1433-1@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that gendered tracking exists in the field of sociology. It entails both "pushing" and "pulling," and it can be extremely subtle. It also operates through many mechanisms. I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but the cases should raise awareness among those who have never experienced such tracking or think it can't happen to them. I have known women graduate students who have received criticism and ostracism, simply because they co-authored articles with members of the "old boy network." Their women graduate student colleagues have insinuated that they were sleeping with these professors to gain their favor. Gender considerations have led to differential treatment - even when professors have the best intentions. For example, people had heard that a given professor invited a male graduate student to his home to work on an NSF application. Apparently, they stayed up really late crafting the application carefully, etc. When one of his women advisees was applying for a grant, however, time to work on her application was relegated to office hours at the University. When confronted with this difference, he said he thought it was inappropriate to invite a woman graduate student to his home in the evening. The old adage about professors being more likely to call on men hasn't become irrelevant. One professor was confronted with his bias and now admits that he's working on his "gender problem." Although these cases may not clear up the mechanisms which funnel women into gender studies, they point to subtle tensions that women face in graduate school. Each of these situations has the potential to inhibit women from developing their skills, fairing well in competitions, and exhibiting confidence on the job market. The male advisor - female advisee relationship is critical, because the majority of tenured faculty continue to be men. While it isn't commonly said out-loud, I think many women graduate students experience feelings of gender discrimination. They may choose to work with women advisors to avoid these tensions. They may find themselves attracted toward women-dominated fields, because women professors have shown interest in their work. At Notre Dame, more male than female graduate students have taken area exams in statistics, stratification, and organizations during the last four years. On the other hand, more women have taken area exams in marriage and the family and education than men. Culture and religion seem to be about equal, and I'm not sure about social movements, theory and social-psych. Beth On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Thomas F Brown wrote: > >Sure, there is a lot of reification in this thread (as there is in much > >of sociology), but it is possible that in dept.'s where "old boys" networks > >still operate (as was ours up until 4-5 years ago), the "old boys" might > >be more likely to recruit others like them, and encourage them to do > >their sociology. One must keep in mind that many folks who enter graduate > >school don't have a definite specialty, and their area of specialization > >depend on who they eventually hook up to work with. I don't posit this > >as absolute truth, but it could happen. > > I have no doubt that academics seek to recruit students who are interested > in their specialty, but this doesn't imply an institutionalized > tracking system for various demographic sub-categories. > > You're saying that people tend to associate with others that are similar, > which is perfectly sensible, but this can be as much a pull factor as > a push factor. In other words, apprentices are also making a choice as > to whom they want to work with. > > I still don't see any evidence of an institutionalized channeling of > students into specialties according to their superficial demographic > characteristics. I have never experienced this or heard of others > experiencing it. > > I think that the alternative hypothesis--that students self-select into > specialties--is more plausible given that students self-select into > departments and classes, and both of these choices are prerequisite > to choosing an adviser or a specialty. > > The fact that ethnic studies classes are mostly taught by minorities and > gender studies classes are mostly taught by women doesn't contradict > the self-selection hypothesis. And it argues against the old boy thesis, > which should suggest that old boys would mostly hire other old boys even > to teach ethnic and gender studies. > > Political influences can also affect hiring decisions, and these factors > often originate from outside the hiring committee and hence do not necessarily > indicate the preferences of the committee itself. And if this political > atmosphere demands women and minorities to teach certain specialties, > that constitutes a pull factor, not a disciplinary push factor. Is > there any evidence that such demographic requirements orgininate from > hiring committees or other disciplinary institutions? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Beth Schaefer Caniglia Office: (219) 631-6463 Department of Sociology Home: (219) 259-3723 University of Notre Dame Internet: eschaefe@bach.helios.nd.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~