The focal article by Gabriel et al. (2023) provides a valuable overview on how department heads and other faculty members can support female scholars to navigate the complex demands of pregnancy, motherhood, and childcare in academia. However, we argue that these issues are rooted in wider academic and societal trends, and therefore need to be considered from a broader perspective. The focal article implies that work – life balance policy changes, combined with the goodwill and allyship of heads of departments and academic co-workers, will provide the much-needed solutions. Considering that many European countries have decent national regulations regarding maternity and parental leave in place, we make the case that, although policies are necessary for creating bearable situations and do work, they are not enough. In order to truly promote a “ cultural shift that shatters the assumption that having a family is not compatible with academic success ” (Gabriel et al., 2023, p. 2), we need to aim higher, beyond bearable and work toward changing the evaluation criteria and performance standards in the academic system itself. This would provide a more sustainable and, thus, effective strategy, that accounts for pressures and problems related to work acceleration and acknowledges the perspectives of different stakeholders, working mothers, working fathers, and childfree employees alike. The focal article ’ s suggestions for supporting female scholars focus on individual level strategies within organizations, as the political system in the US does not provide decent regulations that protect their well-being and work – life balance. We argue that family-friendly policies, whether on the national, institutional, or departmental level, are necessary but not sufficient in tackling the problems outlined in the focal paper and often do not go further than making raising children bearable (e.g., making sure that women can properly recover from childbirth, being flexible about meeting times that accommodate caring responsibilities). But in order to make combining family and academic success a realistic option, more is needed
Gabriel等人的重点文章（2023）对系主任和其他教职员工如何支持女性学者应对学术界怀孕、做母亲和育儿的复杂需求提供了宝贵的概述。然而，我们认为，这些问题植根于更广泛的学术和社会趋势，因此需要从更广泛的角度来考虑。重点文章暗示，工作与生活平衡政策的改变，再加上部门负责人和学术同事的善意和盟友关系，将提供急需的解决方案。考虑到许多欧洲国家都有关于产假和育儿假的体面的国家法规，我们认为，尽管政策对于创造可承受的情况和发挥作用是必要的，但它们是不够的。为了真正推动“打破家庭与学业成功不相容的假设的文化转变”（Gabriel et al.，2023，p.2），我们需要更高的目标，超越承受能力，努力改变学术体系本身的评估标准和表现标准。这将提供一个更可持续、更有效的战略，考虑到与加快工作有关的压力和问题，并承认不同利益相关者、在职母亲、在职父亲和无子女员工的观点。焦点文章对支持女性学者的建议侧重于组织内的个人层面战略，因为美国的政治制度没有提供保护她们福祉和工作与生活平衡的体面法规。我们认为，无论是国家、机构还是部门层面的家庭友好政策，在解决重点文件中概述的问题方面是必要的，但还不够，而且通常只会让孩子的抚养变得可以忍受（例如，确保妇女能够从分娩中适当康复，灵活安排照顾责任的会议时间）。但是，为了使家庭和学业相结合成为一个现实的选择，还需要更多
{"title":"Beyond bearable: Gender equality and the benefits of systemic change in academia","authors":"Annika Nübold, E. Dóci","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.20","url":null,"abstract":"The focal article by Gabriel et al. (2023) provides a valuable overview on how department heads and other faculty members can support female scholars to navigate the complex demands of pregnancy, motherhood, and childcare in academia. However, we argue that these issues are rooted in wider academic and societal trends, and therefore need to be considered from a broader perspective. The focal article implies that work – life balance policy changes, combined with the goodwill and allyship of heads of departments and academic co-workers, will provide the much-needed solutions. Considering that many European countries have decent national regulations regarding maternity and parental leave in place, we make the case that, although policies are necessary for creating bearable situations and do work, they are not enough. In order to truly promote a “ cultural shift that shatters the assumption that having a family is not compatible with academic success ” (Gabriel et al., 2023, p. 2), we need to aim higher, beyond bearable and work toward changing the evaluation criteria and performance standards in the academic system itself. This would provide a more sustainable and, thus, effective strategy, that accounts for pressures and problems related to work acceleration and acknowledges the perspectives of different stakeholders, working mothers, working fathers, and childfree employees alike. The focal article ’ s suggestions for supporting female scholars focus on individual level strategies within organizations, as the political system in the US does not provide decent regulations that protect their well-being and work – life balance. We argue that family-friendly policies, whether on the national, institutional, or departmental level, are necessary but not sufficient in tackling the problems outlined in the focal paper and often do not go further than making raising children bearable (e.g., making sure that women can properly recover from childbirth, being flexible about meeting times that accommodate caring responsibilities). But in order to make combining family and academic success a realistic option, more is needed","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43970764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bhindai Mahabir, Sonal Swain, Joel Hernández, Ho Kwan Cheung
Over the past few decades, women have increasingly attained educational and employment opportunities that were previously unavailable to them (Van de Kaa, 1987). Gabriel and colleagues (2022) demonstrate that there is insufficient support for pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving despite the growing number of female faculty in academia. Although we applaud and agree with the many points raised by Gabriel et al. (2022), one overlooked perspective is how female graduate students experience starting a family while pursuing their academic careers. Depending on individual career trajectory, graduate education often coincides with the ideal time for starting a family. The graduate student population forms the backbone of higher education as instructors and researchers. Therefore, to understand the systemic disadvantages faced by women in academia, graduate students must be included in the discussion. In our commentary, we discuss how perspectives on career pursuit and family planning have evolved, including changes in culture and societal expectations, increased access to higher education for women, and technological advances in family planning. Following that, we discuss the challenges female graduate students may face when starting a family, such as limited financial resources and support. After examining how these challenges can negatively impact academic and professional performance, we suggest some accommodations and resources that may help address the concerns raised.
在过去几十年中，妇女越来越多地获得了以前无法获得的教育和就业机会(Van de Kaa, 1987年)。加布里埃尔及其同事(2022)表明，尽管学术界的女性教师人数不断增加，但对怀孕、母亲和儿童照顾的支持不足。尽管我们赞同Gabriel等人(2022)提出的许多观点，但有一个被忽视的观点是，女研究生在追求学术生涯的同时如何组建家庭。根据个人的职业发展轨迹，研究生教育往往与组建家庭的理想时间相吻合。研究生作为教师和研究人员构成了高等教育的中坚力量。因此，要了解女性在学术界面临的系统性劣势，必须将研究生纳入讨论范围。在我们的评论中，我们讨论了职业追求和计划生育的观点是如何演变的，包括文化和社会期望的变化，女性接受高等教育的机会增加，以及计划生育方面的技术进步。接下来，我们讨论了女研究生在组建家庭时可能面临的挑战，比如有限的经济资源和支持。在研究了这些挑战如何对学业和专业表现产生负面影响之后，我们建议一些住宿和资源可以帮助解决所提出的问题。
{"title":"Changing times, changing resources: Starting a family as a graduate student","authors":"Bhindai Mahabir, Sonal Swain, Joel Hernández, Ho Kwan Cheung","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.2","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past few decades, women have increasingly attained educational and employment opportunities that were previously unavailable to them (Van de Kaa, 1987). Gabriel and colleagues (2022) demonstrate that there is insufficient support for pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving despite the growing number of female faculty in academia. Although we applaud and agree with the many points raised by Gabriel et al. (2022), one overlooked perspective is how female graduate students experience starting a family while pursuing their academic careers. Depending on individual career trajectory, graduate education often coincides with the ideal time for starting a family. The graduate student population forms the backbone of higher education as instructors and researchers. Therefore, to understand the systemic disadvantages faced by women in academia, graduate students must be included in the discussion. In our commentary, we discuss how perspectives on career pursuit and family planning have evolved, including changes in culture and societal expectations, increased access to higher education for women, and technological advances in family planning. Following that, we discuss the challenges female graduate students may face when starting a family, such as limited financial resources and support. After examining how these challenges can negatively impact academic and professional performance, we suggest some accommodations and resources that may help address the concerns raised.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43882104","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the last several years, much research has touched on maternity and pregnancy in the workplace, including recent attention on how menopause may affect women’s experience at work (e.g., Grandey et al., 2020). In their focal article, Gabriel and colleagues (2022) discuss the importance of taking what we have learned through research and applying it to better support women faculty members. In doing so, they tellingly discuss the lack of support from their institutions, colleagues, and fellow department members. We have no dispute with any of their arguments but want to highlight a separate yet related aspect regarding support for women in academia. Specifically, in this commentary, we (a current graduate student and a faculty member who has been chair of an Industrial/Organization [I/O] Psych and Organizational Behavior doctoral program) suggest that the lack of support for female academics begins well before they assume their first faculty positions. It all begins in graduate school, when the high workload, minimal access to parental leave, limited financial resources, and a lack of access to childcare together communicate that: “Now is not the time to have children!”
{"title":"It all begins when you are a graduate student","authors":"Shani Pupco, J. Barling","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.16","url":null,"abstract":"In the last several years, much research has touched on maternity and pregnancy in the workplace, including recent attention on how menopause may affect women’s experience at work (e.g., Grandey et al., 2020). In their focal article, Gabriel and colleagues (2022) discuss the importance of taking what we have learned through research and applying it to better support women faculty members. In doing so, they tellingly discuss the lack of support from their institutions, colleagues, and fellow department members. We have no dispute with any of their arguments but want to highlight a separate yet related aspect regarding support for women in academia. Specifically, in this commentary, we (a current graduate student and a faculty member who has been chair of an Industrial/Organization [I/O] Psych and Organizational Behavior doctoral program) suggest that the lack of support for female academics begins well before they assume their first faculty positions. It all begins in graduate school, when the high workload, minimal access to parental leave, limited financial resources, and a lack of access to childcare together communicate that: “Now is not the time to have children!”","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46382902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Allen, M. Miller, Kimberly A. French, Eunsook Kim, G. Centeno
1University of South Florida, Department of Psychology, Tampa, FL, USA, 2University of South Florida, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, Tampa, FL, USA, 3Georgia Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4University of South Florida, Department of Educational Measurement and Research, Tampa, FL, USA and 5Florida Southern College, Barney Barnett School of Business and Free Enterprise, Lakeland, FL, USA *Corresponding author. Email: tallen@mail.usf.edu
{"title":"Gender differences in tenure-track faculty time spent on childcare","authors":"T. Allen, M. Miller, Kimberly A. French, Eunsook Kim, G. Centeno","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.5","url":null,"abstract":"1University of South Florida, Department of Psychology, Tampa, FL, USA, 2University of South Florida, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, Tampa, FL, USA, 3Georgia Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4University of South Florida, Department of Educational Measurement and Research, Tampa, FL, USA and 5Florida Southern College, Barney Barnett School of Business and Free Enterprise, Lakeland, FL, USA *Corresponding author. Email: tallen@mail.usf.edu","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45790582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The focal article (Gabriel et al., 2023) calls on policymakers, department heads, and faculty to “ build structures that support women professors as they navigate the complexities of pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the caregiving demands of their children. ” In this commentary, we extend the arguments of Gabriel and colleagues by adding a fourth actor to the conversation: faculty labor unions. We argue that faculty unions are a potential structural support for women professors that can facilitate access to caregiving and family-related resources. Although faculty unions are comprised of fellow faculty members, they provide unique structural power beyond faculty allyship described in the focal article. Unions are something that women professors can potentially rely on when they do not have allies in administration and among their colleagues. And, when they do have allies, they can work in tandem with the union. To
这篇重点文章(Gabriel et al.， 2023)呼吁政策制定者、部门主管和教职员工“建立支持女教授应对怀孕、产后和照顾孩子的复杂需求的结构”。在这篇评论中，我们通过在对话中加入第四个角色来扩展加布里埃尔和同事的论点:教师工会。我们认为，教师工会是对女教授潜在的结构性支持，可以促进获得护理和家庭相关资源。虽然教师工会是由其他教师组成的，但他们提供了独特的结构力量，超出了重点文章中描述的教师联盟。当女教授在行政部门和同事中没有盟友时，工会是她们可能依赖的东西。而且，当他们有盟友时，他们可以与工会合作。来
{"title":"Faculty unions as a fourth actor: Two paths to supporting female professors in academia","authors":"Kristie L. McAlpine, Matthew M. Piszczek","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.11","url":null,"abstract":"The focal article (Gabriel et al., 2023) calls on policymakers, department heads, and faculty to “ build structures that support women professors as they navigate the complexities of pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the caregiving demands of their children. ” In this commentary, we extend the arguments of Gabriel and colleagues by adding a fourth actor to the conversation: faculty labor unions. We argue that faculty unions are a potential structural support for women professors that can facilitate access to caregiving and family-related resources. Although faculty unions are comprised of fellow faculty members, they provide unique structural power beyond faculty allyship described in the focal article. Unions are something that women professors can potentially rely on when they do not have allies in administration and among their colleagues. And, when they do have allies, they can work in tandem with the union. To","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47913318","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Sackett, Charlene Zhang, Christopher M. Berry, F. Lievens
Abstract Sackett et al. (2022) identified previously unnoticed flaws in the way range restriction corrections have been applied in prior meta-analyses of personnel selection tools. They offered revised estimates of operational validity, which are often quite different from the prior estimates. The present paper attempts to draw out the applied implications of that work. We aim to a) present a conceptual overview of the critique of prior approaches to correction, b) outline the implications of this new perspective for the relative validity of different predictors and for the tradeoff between validity and diversity in selection system design, c) highlight the need to attend to variability in meta-analytic validity estimates, rather than just the mean, d) summarize reactions encountered to date to Sackett et al., and e) offer a series of recommendations regarding how to go about correcting validity estimates for unreliability in the criterion and for range restriction in applied work.
{"title":"Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors","authors":"P. Sackett, Charlene Zhang, Christopher M. Berry, F. Lievens","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.24","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sackett et al. (2022) identified previously unnoticed flaws in the way range restriction corrections have been applied in prior meta-analyses of personnel selection tools. They offered revised estimates of operational validity, which are often quite different from the prior estimates. The present paper attempts to draw out the applied implications of that work. We aim to a) present a conceptual overview of the critique of prior approaches to correction, b) outline the implications of this new perspective for the relative validity of different predictors and for the tradeoff between validity and diversity in selection system design, c) highlight the need to attend to variability in meta-analytic validity estimates, rather than just the mean, d) summarize reactions encountered to date to Sackett et al., and e) offer a series of recommendations regarding how to go about correcting validity estimates for unreliability in the criterion and for range restriction in applied work.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42085365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gabriel and colleagues ’ (2022) focal article addresses how academia ’ s culture surrounding tenure, career success, and promotions can cause women scholars to question if they can simultaneously have both a successful career and a family. Balancing both a fulfilling career and family life has been an ongoing issue for women in all industries. Not only can this balancing act itself hinder career opportunities for women, but as the authors point out, a lack of support, toxic attitudes, and biased perceptions regarding pregnant women and mothers in the workforce can create additional career obstacles. Interestingly, recent research suggests that pregnancy-related biases may extend beyond even currently pregnant women or mothers, and may also apply to women who might simply be perceived as soon becoming pregnant (e.g., Gloor et al., 2018; Gloor et al., 2021). This has been coined the “ maybe baby effect. ” The maybe baby effect proposes that the assumed like-lihood of a young woman soon becoming pregnant increases employers ’ perceptions of accom-panied inconvenience (i.e., maternity leave) while decreasing perceptions of the woman ’ s job commitment (Gloor et al., 2018). The maybe baby effect can be traced back to the “ maternal wall ” phenomenon, which embodies the different forms of discrimination and biases working mothers or pregnant employees experience in the workplace or while trying to enter the workforce (Williams, 2004). The maternal wall differs from the glass ceiling 1 because it specifically pertains to biases that occur because of a woman ’ s parental or pregnancy status, and not because of other gender-based biases. The article by Gabriel and colleagues speaks to general maternal wall issues within academia. In this commentary, we expand upon Gabriel et al. (2022) maternal wall concerns by discussing the maybe baby effect and how it might adversely impact women within the academic work setting.
{"title":"Maternal wall biases and the maybe baby effect","authors":"Angie Y. Delacruz, Andrew B. Speer","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.3","url":null,"abstract":"Gabriel and colleagues ’ (2022) focal article addresses how academia ’ s culture surrounding tenure, career success, and promotions can cause women scholars to question if they can simultaneously have both a successful career and a family. Balancing both a fulfilling career and family life has been an ongoing issue for women in all industries. Not only can this balancing act itself hinder career opportunities for women, but as the authors point out, a lack of support, toxic attitudes, and biased perceptions regarding pregnant women and mothers in the workforce can create additional career obstacles. Interestingly, recent research suggests that pregnancy-related biases may extend beyond even currently pregnant women or mothers, and may also apply to women who might simply be perceived as soon becoming pregnant (e.g., Gloor et al., 2018; Gloor et al., 2021). This has been coined the “ maybe baby effect. ” The maybe baby effect proposes that the assumed like-lihood of a young woman soon becoming pregnant increases employers ’ perceptions of accom-panied inconvenience (i.e., maternity leave) while decreasing perceptions of the woman ’ s job commitment (Gloor et al., 2018). The maybe baby effect can be traced back to the “ maternal wall ” phenomenon, which embodies the different forms of discrimination and biases working mothers or pregnant employees experience in the workplace or while trying to enter the workforce (Williams, 2004). The maternal wall differs from the glass ceiling 1 because it specifically pertains to biases that occur because of a woman ’ s parental or pregnancy status, and not because of other gender-based biases. The article by Gabriel and colleagues speaks to general maternal wall issues within academia. In this commentary, we expand upon Gabriel et al. (2022) maternal wall concerns by discussing the maybe baby effect and how it might adversely impact women within the academic work setting.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48464095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a rule-of-thumb that has been largely used in improvisational comedy whereby partic-ipants are encouraged to add to and expand on a line of thinking (with ‘ yes
有一条经验法则在即兴喜剧中被广泛使用，鼓励参与者加入并扩展思路（用“是”
{"title":"Yes, and…: Taming the wicked problem and navigating the empathy–efficiency paradox","authors":"Satoris S. Howes, A. H. Huffman","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.7","url":null,"abstract":"There is a rule-of-thumb that has been largely used in improvisational comedy whereby partic-ipants are encouraged to add to and expand on a line of thinking (with ‘ yes","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46275137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gabriel et al. (in press) detail critical issues facing mothers in academia. We would like to strengthen that notion because mothers in academia face discrimination and confront unique barriers, unlike those challenging their male or female counterparts with no children. Put succinctly, mothers have a specific vulnerability resulting from their intersectional status as women and parents. First, from the perspective of womanhood, women need to cope with gender discrimination in the workplace, manifested, for example, in a glass ceiling in promotion, low pay relative to men in equivalent positions, and sexual harassment (e.g., Karami et al., 2020). In STEM professions – careers related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics – severe underrepresentation of women is prevalent. Furthermore, the representation of women in academia declines as one goes up in faculty seniority level, which makes the promotion from junior to senior level faculty positions problematic (Corbett & Hill, 2015). Second, from the (academic) “parent perspective,” challenges include, for instance, coping with the occupational ticking clock for producing publications within a given tenure track period and dealing with pregnancy and raising a family during the same critical period. The attempt to deal with each category separately misses the mark of identifying the academic mother’s unique situation. Consequent to this declaration, we respond to Gabriel et al.'s (in press) “call to action” and venture to suggest necessary changes in how scholarly women are supported in academia. Moreover, we preface our comments by stating that we share our perceptions from both our research interest in the subject (e.g., Greenberg & Kurlander, 2022) and our stance as mothers in academia. Finally, before presenting our recommendations, we would like to emphasize three points:
加布里埃尔等人(出版中)详细介绍了学术界母亲面临的关键问题。我们希望加强这一观念，因为学术界的母亲面临着歧视，面临着独特的障碍，不像那些挑战没有孩子的男性或女性同行的人。简而言之，母亲有一种特殊的脆弱性，这是由于她们作为女性和父母的双重身份造成的。首先，从女性的角度来看，女性需要应对工作场所的性别歧视，例如，晋升中的玻璃天花板，相对于同等职位的男性的低工资以及性骚扰(例如，Karami et al.， 2020)。在与科学、技术、工程和数学相关的STEM职业中，女性的代表性严重不足。此外，女性在学术界的代表性随着教师资历水平的上升而下降，这使得从初级到高级教师职位的晋升成为问题(Corbett & Hill, 2015)。其次，从(学术的)“父母的角度”来看，挑战包括，例如，在给定的终身教职期内，应对职业上的滴答滴答，出版出版物，以及在同一关键时期处理怀孕和养家糊口的问题。试图单独处理每一种类别，却忽略了识别学术母亲的独特情况。根据这一声明，我们回应Gabriel等人的“行动呼吁”，并冒昧地建议学术界如何支持女性学者进行必要的改革。此外，我们在评论之前声明，我们分享了我们对这一主题的研究兴趣(例如，Greenberg & Kurlander, 2022)和我们作为学术界母亲的立场的看法。最后，在提出我们的建议之前，我们要强调三点:
{"title":"The dual role of faculty and motherhood: Enabling resources for successful coping","authors":"Edna Rabenu, Daphna Shwartz Asher, Yahel Kurlander","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.1","url":null,"abstract":"Gabriel et al. (in press) detail critical issues facing mothers in academia. We would like to strengthen that notion because mothers in academia face discrimination and confront unique barriers, unlike those challenging their male or female counterparts with no children. Put succinctly, mothers have a specific vulnerability resulting from their intersectional status as women and parents. First, from the perspective of womanhood, women need to cope with gender discrimination in the workplace, manifested, for example, in a glass ceiling in promotion, low pay relative to men in equivalent positions, and sexual harassment (e.g., Karami et al., 2020). In STEM professions – careers related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics – severe underrepresentation of women is prevalent. Furthermore, the representation of women in academia declines as one goes up in faculty seniority level, which makes the promotion from junior to senior level faculty positions problematic (Corbett & Hill, 2015). Second, from the (academic) “parent perspective,” challenges include, for instance, coping with the occupational ticking clock for producing publications within a given tenure track period and dealing with pregnancy and raising a family during the same critical period. The attempt to deal with each category separately misses the mark of identifying the academic mother’s unique situation. Consequent to this declaration, we respond to Gabriel et al.'s (in press) “call to action” and venture to suggest necessary changes in how scholarly women are supported in academia. Moreover, we preface our comments by stating that we share our perceptions from both our research interest in the subject (e.g., Greenberg & Kurlander, 2022) and our stance as mothers in academia. Finally, before presenting our recommendations, we would like to emphasize three points:","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46359228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Katrina A. Burch, Melissa B. Sorensen, Cora Hurt, Molly R. Simmons, Tamia Eugene, Adalin K. McDaniel, anna. paulson
Gabriel et al. (2023) bring attention to an oft-discussed issue, women’s caregiving and tenure/ promotion in academia, and that one often precludes the other from success. Importantly and perhaps alluded to in the focal article, the challenge of caregiving for women in academia are conversations held in whispers and among our closest confidants, at least in the past. However, through largely women-led scholarship and raising their voices (in symposia and panel discussions) at some of our most prestigious conferences in the I-O psychology and management fields, these issues are starting to gain traction. While we largely agree with Gabriel et al.’s (2023) call to action, we seek to draw attention to, and critique, their argument that caregiving policies (e.g., parental leave) are a panacea for addressing women’s caregiving in academia. More specifically, Gabriel et al. (2023) correctly note that in the United States, an absence of appropriate caregiving policies places department chairs/ heads and other faculty members as allies in enacting change to support women caregivers in the academy. However, we contend that policy can be addressed, that is university policies can be enacted and changed, and feminist economics offers an avenue with which to do so. We first describe feminist economics, and we then discuss university caregiving policies as gender-blind, challenging the arguments in the focal article that parental leave and tenure extension are vital to women’s success. Finally, we conclude with steps for establishing gender awareness in university policies aimed at supporting caregiving, ending with suggestions for practical solutions. Importantly, we challenge Gabriel et al.’s (2023) call to action with the following battle cry: universities must enact and/or change their policies to be gender-aware in order to support the advancement of their women caregivers
{"title":"Parental leave is just a wolf in sheep’s clothing: A call for gender-aware policies in academia","authors":"Katrina A. Burch, Melissa B. Sorensen, Cora Hurt, Molly R. Simmons, Tamia Eugene, Adalin K. McDaniel, anna. paulson","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.8","url":null,"abstract":"Gabriel et al. (2023) bring attention to an oft-discussed issue, women’s caregiving and tenure/ promotion in academia, and that one often precludes the other from success. Importantly and perhaps alluded to in the focal article, the challenge of caregiving for women in academia are conversations held in whispers and among our closest confidants, at least in the past. However, through largely women-led scholarship and raising their voices (in symposia and panel discussions) at some of our most prestigious conferences in the I-O psychology and management fields, these issues are starting to gain traction. While we largely agree with Gabriel et al.’s (2023) call to action, we seek to draw attention to, and critique, their argument that caregiving policies (e.g., parental leave) are a panacea for addressing women’s caregiving in academia. More specifically, Gabriel et al. (2023) correctly note that in the United States, an absence of appropriate caregiving policies places department chairs/ heads and other faculty members as allies in enacting change to support women caregivers in the academy. However, we contend that policy can be addressed, that is university policies can be enacted and changed, and feminist economics offers an avenue with which to do so. We first describe feminist economics, and we then discuss university caregiving policies as gender-blind, challenging the arguments in the focal article that parental leave and tenure extension are vital to women’s success. Finally, we conclude with steps for establishing gender awareness in university policies aimed at supporting caregiving, ending with suggestions for practical solutions. Importantly, we challenge Gabriel et al.’s (2023) call to action with the following battle cry: universities must enact and/or change their policies to be gender-aware in order to support the advancement of their women caregivers","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45325648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：