Abstract
The route to tenure is often clear and well-defined, while the path to full professor is notoriously described as ambiguous and elusive, which raises questions and uncertainty on how to be promoted. In order to explore institutional concerns expressed by associate professor women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and social and behavioral sciences (SBS) regarding the pathway to full professor, interviews were conducted with members of the Belayers Network at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (UCCS). The Belayers Network consists of STEM and SBS associate professor women and is designed to support their promotion to full professor through opportunities to come together for informational, tangible, and emotional resources. An instrumental case study with a pragmatic theoretical lens was employed for this study. Interviews were analyzed inductively and resulted in five themes: (1) Full professor promotion criteria are ambiguous; (2) Teaching and service expectations are too high; (3) Lack of research collaborators inhibits scholarly output; (4) Scarce research-related resources are a persistent struggle; and (5) Mentoring and support are absent. The academy may find it instructive to understand better associate professor women’s institutional concerns about the pathway to full professor and possible ways to offset the obstacles toward achievement. Additionally, pragmatic solutions and implications are offered to mitigate these concerns in the context of UCCS. This research is sponsored by a National Science Foundation ADVANCE Adaptation Award.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 109-126 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Journal of Culture and Values in Education |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Feb 15 2025 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2025, OpenED Network. All rights reserved.
Funding
to submit upon completion of the boot camp. Moreover, Project CREST created ADVANCEment mini-grants for associate professor women to acquire funds for summer salary, a course buyout, or to fund a student research assistant. Investments must be made in people, infrastructure, and programs to ensure associate professor women possess the insights, resources, and workload to attain full professor status successfully. One of the biggest dilemmas for institutions to grapple with is leveling out the teaching, research, and service expectations (Malisch et al., 2020). Perhaps a first step is to avoid assuming all faculty engage in these areas uniformly and instead leverage strengths, provide flexibility, and allow for more nuance in full professor promotion criteria and processes. Relatedly, realistic role expectations must be enacted to dismantle the ideal worker norms (Miller & Riley, 2022) that often disproportionately disadvantage women faculty, particularly those who are caregivers (Casad et al., 2022; CohenMiller et al., 2022; Hart, 2016; Mason et al., 2013; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2012). Increasing family-friendly policies such as childcare services, elder care investments, part-time tenure-track options, and restructuring the traditional teaching-research-service workload to meet different work-life needs could tremendously affect the number of full professor women in the academy (Carr et al., 2019; Casad et al., 2022; CohenMiller et al., 2022; Mason et al., 2013). In addition, institutions must improve the criteria and process language for promotion to full professor and provide relevant mentoring in this area 堀 Many institutions have implemented women 嬁? -camreider mentoring programs to support career planning, understanding full professor criteria, and reducing feelings of isolation, with much success (Buch et al., 2011). Future Research Future research is warranted to explore how effective policy and practice can mediate these institutional concerns ? Is a mul?ptironged approach needed ? or are targeted approaches more efficacious ? such as mentoring programs ? Also 唀 understanding the ways in which department chairs and other campus administrators are aware and combat these concerns is vital 堀In this vein, much of the research, particularly the solutions, is hidden away in singular institutional efforts and must be brought to the forefront of scholarship so more knowledge-sharing and action can occur. It also would be helpful to understand if these institutional concerns are unique to associate professors in STEM and SBS at R2 institutions or if there is a universal nature to these concerns across disciplines, institutional types, and those with other minoritized identities. Conducting comparative studies across different institutions would shed additional light on the nature of these concerns, extenuating patterns of concern, and highlight areas in which institutional policies and practices impact women 嬁? experiences in the academy 堀 Endless explorations are possible if the focus is on developing more potential solutions and practical implications from this research inquiry. Conclusion To fully support women 嬁? advancement in the academy 唀 institutions must understand their challenges and address them responsively and inclusively. Using a pragmatic theoretical lens (Kelly & Cordeiro, 2020), this instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) provides a rich understanding of the institutional concerns shared by associate professor women in STEM and SBS on the pathway to full professor, as well as the potential solutions and practical implications. Their concerns center on unrealistic workload expectations, lack of internal research collaborators, scarce research-related resources, and vague full professor promotion criteria coupled with no mentorship and too little support. Attending to these concerns with effective policy and practice will support women 嬁? retention and advancement in higher education and promote greater disciplinary creativity and innovation ? all worthy and necessary endeavors. Disclosure Statement The authors report no potential conflicting or competing interests. Funding Acknowledgment This research is sponsored by a National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE Adaptation Award (Grant #21-17351). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of only the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. This instrumental case study explored the institutional concerns of associate professor women in STEM and SBS about achieving the rank of full professor with a pragmatic theoretical lens ? Kelly & Cordeiro, 2020) 堀 Consequently ? the research team focused on how the literature can inform the experiences shared to create actionable knowledge at UCCS 堀 Findings indicate five main concerns P(1) Full professor promotion criteria are ambiguous; (2) Teaching and service expectations are too high; (3) Lack of research collaborators inhibits scholarly output; (4) Scarce research-related resources are a persistent struggle; and (5) Mentoring and support are absent. The concerns were ubiquitous despite disciplinary, race, age, and homelife differences. This suggests that systemic changes at UCCS are needed to support the promotion of more associate professor women to full professors in STEM and SBS. Participants found the criteria vague for promotion to full professor, with little to no mentorship within departments or the university to help navigate this crucial next career step. The lack of clarity in what defined Sexcellence ? in teaching ? reseaarnchd ? service meant they were all striving to be stellar researchers, superb teachers, and star campus citizens, hoping they were meeting the mark. Nevertheless, they acknowledged that they believed research to be the most important criterion for promotion, even though it was not clearly defined. Not surprisingly, teaching and service workload expectations were considered the most significant barrier to conducting research and being prepared to go up for full professor promotion. As Gasser and Shaffer ? ? ? ? indicated 唀 the participants were steeped in Sinhsotiutusetikoeneapl ing ? activities, which reflected the gendered work they were expected to engage in, such as administering academic programs, leading faculty governance committees, and mentoring students and early-career faculty. While the faculty assumed these responsibilities because they cared about the institution and its people, they expressed anxiety about their pathway to full professor being stalled as a result, a notion all too common in the literature (Baldwin et al., 2008; Coate et al., 2015; Covarrubais et al., 2022; Domingo et al., 2022; Gasser & Shaffer, 2014; Hart, 2016; Lufler & McNulty, 2022; Van Miegroet et al., 2019). Additionally, the lack of internal research collaborators was considered an impediment, as the university does not prioritize a Sdeep bench ? of faculty expertise that could facilitate internal research collaborations. Thus, this lack of prioritization perpetuates the difficulty faculty experience in forging collaborative research groups and engaging in team science. While the participants sought external research collaborators, it was challenging to maintain those relationships as the teaching, research, and service expectations at other universities were vastly different. Moreover, as they all reported, their own teaching and service expectations overshadowed their ability to conduct more research and disseminate their work. Relatedly, as faculty are in Sdsi ciplinary silos ? ? securing resea-rreclhated resources is challenging in terms of grant support and graduate student funding, which only increases their workload. The lack of research collaborators led to more feelings of isolation as the participants did not have colleagues surrounding them to contribute to their research. As noted in the literature, women faculty value collaboration and teamwork (Coate et al., 2015), and in the area of research, the participants found this to be lacking. This finding may shed much light on why women remain in this career stage longer than men and are more likely to leave academia (Bird & Rhoton, 2021; Buch et al., 2011; Casad et al., 2022; Finkelstein et al., 2017; Fox Tree & Vaid, 2022; van Veelen & Derks, 2022). While these concerns are mirrored in the literature, there are practical steps to alleviate some of the stress and anxieties the participants highlighted. As the participants suggested, creating multiple pathways to full professor, as opposed to a singular focus on research output, should be considered ? especially given UCCS 嬁? high teaching and service demands 堀 participants all felt they were lagging in their ability to do research due to the strains on their time, much of which was required by their institution. Having access to mentors to provide insight into the promotion process and practical support in areas of concern, namely grant writing, is another practical step institutions can take to improve the experience of associate professors. The benefits of mentorship are well highlighted in the literature with specific recommendations regarding reimagining full professor promotion criteria by creating multiple, inclusive pathways to full professor beyond research output and reputation (Baldwin et al., 2008; Bird & Rhoton, 2021; Buch et al., 2011; Coate et al., 2015; Garrett et al., 2023; Lufler & McNulty, 2022; Mitchneck et al., 2016; Van Helden et al., 2023). To create inclusive pathways to full professor status, much can be applied from Scholarship Reconsidered by Boyer et al. (2016). They outline an expanded view of scholarship to include scholarly activity in the areas of discovery, integration, application, teaching and learning, and creative works. Promotion criteria that recognize the diverse scholarly work of faculty, including institutional-building and mentorship, will ensure a broader array of faculty are promoted to full professor by honoring their contributions to their field, institution, and the academy. Implications This study's pragmatic policy and practice implications abound for UCCS and the academy at large. To this end, Project CREST directed several initiatives at UCCS. For instance, they led a white paper with a diversity of faculty across ranks and disciplines to encourage full professor promotion criteria to be expanded to account for institution-building activities, the scholarship of teaching, and community-engaged work. As noted previously, Project CREST formed the Belayers Network to provide mentorship and tangible support to associate professors seeking promotion to full professor. In this effort, Project CREST hired a campus-level research development coordinator to provide wrap-around research support, from reviewing grant proposals to making internal and external research connections to helping address publication feedback from reviewers and editors. The coordinator also leads an evidence-based grant writing boot camp (Smith et al., 2018) designed for participants to produce a full proposal ready This research is sponsored by a National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE Adaptation Award (Grant #21-17351). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations are those of only the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| NSF | |
| CREST-INSEE | |
| National Science Foundation Arctic Social Science Program | 21-17351 |
Keywords
- Associate professor women
- full professor
- institutional concerns
- instrumental case study
- pragmatic
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Language and Linguistics
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Education
- Cultural Studies