Gender Differences in Early Post-PhD Employment in Australian Universities: The influence of PhD...

UQSRC

Prepared for:

Universities Australia

The University of Queensland

Social Research Centre (UQSRC)

ABN: 63942 912 684

August 2008

Gender Differences in Early Post‐PhD Employment in Australian Universities

The Influence of the PhD Experience on

Women’s Academic Careers

FINAL REPORT

The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Level 4, GPNorth 3 The University of Queensland Brisbane Qld 4072 Australia Telephone (07) 3346 9686 International +61 7 3346 9686 Facsimile (07) 3346 9676 Email [email protected] www.uqsrc.uq.edu.au

DIRECTOR Professor Paul Boreham, BEcon, PhD

RESEARCH DIRECTOR Associate Professor Warren Laffan, BAppSc, MMRS, QPMR

Gender Differences in Early Post-PhD Employment in

Australian Universities

The influence of PhD Experience on Women’s Academic Careers

FINAL REPORT

The research reported in this paper was funded under the Second Action Plan for Women Employed in Australian Universities: 2006-2010 through Universities Australia.

Maryanne Dever wishes to acknowledge the support of the Institute for Women's Studies at the University of Ottawa and the McGill Center for Research and Teaching on Women.

June 2008

Reference: J7012 Associate Professor Maryanne Dever Associate Professor Warren Laffan

Professor Paul Boreham Ms Karin Behrens

Dr Michele Haynes Professor Mark Western

Mr Matthias Kubler

The University of Queensland ABN 63942 912 684

Gender Differences in post PhD employment and the influence of PhD experience and family circumstances J7012

List of Contents The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Page a

CONTENTS

LIST of TABLES ................................................................................................................................... b

ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................... c

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... i

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4

2 Background and Context .......................................................................................................... 5

3 Women and Academic Careers ................................................................................................ 7

3.1 The Influence of the PhD Experience ......................................................................................... 8

3.2 Early Academic Career Formation ............................................................................................ 10

3.3 Gender and Research Performance ........................................................................................... 13

3.5 Research in Australia ................................................................................................................ 19

4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 20

5 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1 Demographic characteristics of PhD graduates ......................................................................... 22

5.2 The PhD experience .................................................................................................................. 24

5.3 Career and employment experience Post-PhD .......................................................................... 28

5.4 Families and employment outcomes for PhD graduates ........................................................... 32

6. The Determinants of Employment Outcomes ....................................................................... 37

6.1 Modelling employment outcomes ............................................................................................. 37

6.2 Influences on annual earnings ................................................................................................... 38

6.3 Factors associated with being employed in higher education ................................................... 40

7 Discussion and conclusions ..................................................................................................... 41

References ............................................................................................................................................. 46

APPENDIX 1– Table of means and standard deviations ................................................................. 56

APPENDIX 2– Variables used in multiple regression analysis ........................................................ 58


List of Tables The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Page b

LIST of TABLES

Table 1: PhD completions in Australia by gender (1999-2001) ................................................ 22

Table 2: Go8 and Australian PhD graduates age at time of graduation ..................................... 23

Table 3: Marital status of PhD graduates ................................................................................... 23

Table 4: Go8 and Australia PhD graduates by discipline - 2001. .............................................. 24

Table 5: Gender differences in reasons for commencing a PhD ................................................ 25

Table 6: Research and supervisory context of PhD enrolment .................................................. 26

Table 7: Gender differences in type of support from supervisor ............................................... 26

Table 8: Gender differences in involvement in professional community during PhD enrolment27

Table 9: Gender differences in career aspiration on completion of PhD ................................... 28

Table 10: Employment status by gender - 2006 ......................................................................... 28

Table 11: Employment sector and gender - 2006 ...................................................................... 29

Table 13: Employment status, full-time/part-time work by gender ........................................... 30

Table 14: Occupation in current/most recent main job by 2006 PhD Survey and PhD holders in Australia, 2002........................................................................................................ 30

Table 15: Gender distribution and position for PhD graduates working at universities ............ 31

Table 16: Annual gross salaries by gender and organisation ..................................................... 31

Table 17: Number of children by gender ................................................................................... 32

Table 18: Females PhD graduates employed in universities by living with children ................ 32

Table 19: Employment contract, gender and living with children ............................................. 33

Table 20: Gender differences for work activities ....................................................................... 33

Table 21. Gender differences for work skills during PhD and as part of career ........................ 35

Table 22: Success for career factors and gender ........................................................................ 36

Table 23: Work output prior to submitting and since submitting PhD thesis ............................ 36

Table 24: Linear regression analysis of annual earnings ........................................................... 39

Table 25. Model for Employment within Australian Universities during 2006 ........................ 40

LIST of FIGURES

Figure 1: 2006 PhD Outcome Survey – Age and Gender .......................................................... 22

Figure 2: 2006 PhD Outcome Survey - Extent aspired to particular careers on completion of PhD ............................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 3: Overall usefulness of PhD .......................................................................................... 35


Acronyms The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Page c

ACRONYMS

ACER Australian Council for Educational Research

ANU The Australian National University

ANZSIC Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification

ARC Australian Research Council

ASCED Australian Standard Classification of Education

ASCO Australian Standard Classification of Occupations

CASR Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund

CIRGE Centre for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education

DEETYA Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs

DETYA Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

DEST Department of Education, Science and Training

GCCA Graduate Careers Council of Australia

Go8 Group of Eight universities (see Table 1)

HEIP Higher Education Innovation Programme

Monash Monash University

NORC National Opinion Research Center

PhD Doctor of Philosophy

PREQ Postgraduate research experience questionnaire

RRTMR Research and Research Training Management Reports

RTS Return to sender mail; returned not received emails

UADL The University of Adelaide

UMEL The University of Melbourne

UNSW The University of New South Wales

UQ The University of Queensland

UQSRC The University of Queensland Social Research Centre

USYD The University of Sydney

UPAG Past Course Completion File

UWA The University of Western Australia


Executive Summary The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Page i

Executive Summary

The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) in conjunction with the Deans of

Graduate Studies, The University of Queensland (UQ) and The University of Melbourne (UMEL) was

funded by a Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) through the Higher Education

Innovation Programme (HEIP) grant and the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund (CASR) to

undertake a study of graduates from the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs at the Group of Eight

(Go8) universities to determine the employment outcomes, job attributes and the quality of research

training of those graduates.

Universities Australia commissioned UQSRC to further investigate gender differences in early post

PhD employment in Australian universities and the influence of PhD context and family on women’s

academic careers. Results of this investigation aim to clarify implications for women’s prospects for

advancement.

The study group was the cohort of PhD Graduates five to seven years out from graduation (1999-

2001). A questionnaire was designed for self-completion over the Internet and by paper hardcopy. The

survey was carried out in April to October 2006. The survey yielded 1996 usable on-line and paper

questionnaires, which constitutes 35 percent of the 5700 targeted graduates.

The respondents to this survey generally represented PhD graduates from the Go8 universities and

beyond that from all Australian universities. DEST figures for the Go8 and for the national population

for the period 1999 to 2001 concerning PhD graduates’ gender, age and overseas student status

showed strong similarities with the characteristics of the survey respondents. The proportions of

respondents, who graduated in each of the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 within the sample, also reflected

the Go8 population accurately.

By following the entry of the 1999-2001 female PhD graduate cohort into university (and other)

employment and by comparing their experiences both during PhD enrolment and in the initial period

thereafter with the male cohort from the same period, we are able to establish the factors around which

gender differences emerge in this critical initial phase of PhD graduates’ careers.

Female graduates were significantly more likely than male graduates to report that they pursued their

PhD for such intrinsic motivations as intellectual and academic development, interest in the discipline

area, personal satisfaction, because of interest in the discipline area and interest in the thesis topic.

Female PhD graduates are much more likely to complete their PhD as a solo project and are

significantly less likely to be part of a research group. Being involved in a research group or research

program during the PhD has some important consequences for developing the collaborative and

networking skills that are likely to impact on future employment opportunities and career paths.


Executive Summary The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Page ii

When asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived that their principal supervisor helped them

with various aspects of the PhD experience, female graduates reported significantly less

encouragement than males in those areas relevant to building academic careers: publishing their own

work; preparing funding proposals; giving conference papers; and developing professional

relationships. In general, assistance in gaining employment was significantly more likely to be

available to male rather than female PhD candidates.

Female graduates were less likely to be engaged with their professional community. In particular,

female graduates were significantly less likely than male graduates to interact with professionals

outside academia and with visiting scholars during the course of their PhD studies.

At the time of the survey, 90 percent of respondents were in employment. About half of all

respondents worked in the Higher Education sector and an additional 13 percent worked in Scientific

Research Services. A significantly larger proportion of female graduates worked at universities (55%)

as compared to male graduates (45%).

Not all of the respondents in employment appeared to be in secure employment. 29 percent were on

fixed term contracts and three percent in casual employment. A significantly higher proportion of

female graduates were in these less secure employment situations and were more likely to work part-

time. At the G08 universities significantly fewer female graduates were in supervisory or managerial

positions compared to male graduates and this gender difference was more pronounced for graduates

with children. While 90 percent of male graduates with children were working full-time, only 69

percent of female graduates with children were working full-time.

Female graduates worked to a greater extent in academic teaching and in advising or mentoring

students, while male graduates worked to a greater extent in undertaking research, managing and

supervising others and product development. Respondents reported on those characteristics that they

had acquired during their PhD that had been important in developing their career at work. The factors

that female graduates ranked significantly more highly than male graduates in developing their careers

were an understanding of ethical values in research and teaching skills.

When asked to rate the factors that determine a successful career, both male and female graduates

accorded high significance to having a PhD from a leading university, having good social networks/

connections and knowing the right people. Women were much more likely than men to nominate

projecting a positive image at work, being male and being from the right ethnic background as

significant factors.

Gender was strongly and significantly associated with differences in annual earnings. Net of other

things, female graduates earned about $8,363 per year less than men. Graduates’ earnings are related


Executive Summary The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Page iii

to demographic factors, aspirations and motivations, the kinds of career paths with which the PhD

intersects, and factors occurring during the PhD itself. Female graduates with very strong intrinsic

interests in the discipline or topic earned less than graduates who were not as strongly intrinsically

motivated.

The effects of pre-PhD experiences on earnings were associated primarily with occupation and hours

worked in jobs before the PhD and in the impact of interruptions to employment or education to look

after home and family. The results indicate that an uninterrupted educational history from

undergraduate training to postgraduate training is associated with better earnings than disrupted career

paths. Time to award also showed that faster completion times are associated with higher earnings.

Graduates whose supervisors mentored them extensively and graduates who participated in

networking activities earned more than those with less engaged supervisors, and less involvement in

academic and professional networking during the PhD. These results testify to the importance of social

relationships and academic and professional connections in securing good employment outcomes.

These are matters in which female PhD graduates report having significantly less support than males.

Overall, the results indicated that doctoral graduates in this survey were largely achieving successful

labour market outcomes and were satisfied with the quality of research higher degree training. The

results also indicated that female graduates were generally on lower terms regarding earnings,

employment conditions and level of appointment and these gender differences were more pronounced

within the group of graduates with children and for those working at one of the G08 universities.

The general conclusion supported by this study is that there are indeed significant differences between

male and female PhD candidates in attitudes, family circumstances, the social context of PhD

research, employment outcomes, and career development. In all of these matters women are less likely

than men to report positive outcomes.


Report The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) © 2008 Page 4

1 Introduction

This study is concerned with identifying some of the significant factors that shape the differential

career trajectories and outcomes for men and women employed in the Australian higher education

sector. The focus of the research is on the formative experience of PhD training and supervision and

the initial post-PhD period. A PhD has increasingly become a prerequisite for academic employment.

It is also recognized that the completion of a PhD is an important stage in both research training and

academic career development. The development and consolidation of a research profile and the

transition to independent researcher at this stage is likely to have a profound impact on careers in

universities and this underscores our interest in the different PhD experiences of men and women.

Research performance both during the PhD and in the years following is influenced by the interaction

of a range of personal, social and institutional factors that we endeavour to illuminate in this study.

The transition to university academic careers is also shaped by the ability to access mentoring,

academic networks and professional development opportunities in the early stages of employment and

this is the second area of focus that guides this study.

Despite significant changes in the Australian higher education sector in recent decades which have

seen growing numbers of women completing higher degrees and entering academic employment,

women remain significantly under-represented in senior academic ranks (above level C) in our

universities (ABS, 2008). However, while women’s growing participation in academic employment in

Australia has prompted questions about how gender influences academic career formation and

research performance and about the impact of childbearing and childcare responsibilities on women’s

early academic employment experiences, there has been little empirical analysis of these questions due

to a lack of representative and relevant data.

In order to redress this lack of survey data, this study draws on a nationally-representative data set

containing survey responses from almost 2000 PhD graduates, who completed their degree between

1999 and 2001 at eight Australian universities. The study was undertaken by the University of

Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) in conjunction with the Deans of Graduate Studies at

the Go8 Universities and was funded by the Department of Education, Science and Training Higher

Education Innovation Programme (HEIP) and Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund grants.

The study group was five to seven years out from graduation at the time of the survey in 2006. The

survey yielded 1996 usable questionnaires constituting 35 percent of the 5700 targeted graduates. The

respondents to this survey were PhD graduates from all of the Go8 universities. The characteristics of

the sample accurately reflected those of the Go8 universities (The Australian National University, The

University of Melbourne, The University of Sydney, The University of Queensland, The University of

New South Wales, The University of Western Australia, The University of Adelaide and Monash



University). At the time of the survey, 90 percent of respondents were in employment. About half of

all respondents worked in the Higher Education sector. A significantly larger proportion of female

graduates worked at universities (55%) as compared to male graduates (45%). The majority of

respondents worked as Professionals (82%) or Managers and Administrators (14%). Almost 30

percent (35% of Professionals) worked as university lecturers or tutors.

Given that research performance remains a central factor in promotion to senior levels, the PhD

context and early career research opportunities clearly represent critical points in the career trajectories

of both women and men in the sector. By following the entry of the 1999-2001 female PhD graduate

cohort into university (and other) employment and by comparing their experiences both during PhD

enrolment and in the initial period thereafter with the male cohort from the same period, we are able to

establish the factors around which gender differences emerge in this critical initial phase of PhD

graduates’ careers. The analysis presented below enables us to respond to questions concerning the

different career paths of men and women, at this stage of their careers, in terms of security of

employment, employment levels, and salary. Moreover, by weaving the year of birth of graduates’

children into their educational and employment and non-employment biography and by analyzing the

resulting pattern, our investigation illuminates the impact of family formation and the effects the

timing and number of children have on early university careers and associated factors that might

constitute barriers to women’s career advancement in the years following PhD completion.

Before turning to the data, we consider below the relevant findings from other studies of gender and

postgraduate study and gender and research performance reported in the literature that provide a

context to our own research.

2 Background and Context

During the 1990s, the number of PhD graduates increased rapidly in all OECD countries (Kivinen,

Ahola, & Kaipainen, 2002). In Australia, by 1993, the postgraduate student population had grown to

one fifth of the university student body (Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs, 2001)

at a time when the overall university population was itself growing. Growth in postgraduate education

was in part driven by the abolition of colleges of advanced education and the establishment of a

unitary university system. Within the new system, existing academic staff in applied areas such as

education, business and law were encouraged to undertake doctoral studies, which helped applied

disciplines establish research agendas and imparted a discipline-like character and academic identity to

emerging specialisations (Marginson, 2002: 7).

Since the 1990s, postgraduate research and coursework enrolments have continued to expand. In 2000,

Australian universities enrolled 142,423 higher degree students with around 20 per cent in doctoral

programs (DETYA 2001; Marginson, 2002: 7). Growth amongst all postgraduate programs was



greatest for Masters by Coursework (42.7% increase), followed by doctoral degrees (34.6% increase)

between 1995 and 2000 (DETYA 2001; Marginson, 2002: 7). Unfortunately for many students

graduating from these programs, this period also saw a contraction in opportunities for academic

careers. Since the mid 1970s, most postgraduate research students expected to enter academic

employment, with the dominant form of doctoral training being preparation of a thesis. PhD training

has changed little since that time but the demand for postgraduate training has changed significantly

(Marginson, 2002: 205-215) as new employment opportunities in the public and private sectors have

offset declining employment opportunities in universities. The trend is driven by increased skill

requirements in professional and managerial occupations, the need for advanced training in

transferable intellectual skills, and credentialing processes which increase the formal educational

qualifications required for certain jobs (Marginson, 2002: 22-23).

There is little systematic information available in Australia about the career outcomes of PhD

graduates and about patterns of gender differences in those careers. The Australian Council for

Educational Research (ACER) has developed a test of generic graduate skills (as identified by

universities) to be administered at university exit. The Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA)

also undertakes an annual Postgraduate Destination Survey. However, this data is collected a few

months after graduation, before many graduates have settled into stable employment, and therefore

gives little indication of the skills and knowledge required in graduate jobs or the employment

outcomes of graduates. As in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union there is

a growing awareness in Australian universities of the need to evaluate methodically the employment

outcomes of PhD graduates, to identify the knowledge and skill requirements of their jobs, and to

assess and improve the quality of PhD research training. There is also a need to ensure that PhD

graduates, in particular, are able to work in areas outside their traditional disciplinary boundaries.

Available data show that women now account for almost half of all doctoral completions in Australia,

and they outnumber male doctoral graduates in the fields of health, education, society and culture, and

the creative arts (DEST, 2005). However, these achievements have not translated into the anticipated

changes in gendered patterns of academic staffing. Women now represent 53% of overall university

staff and 41% of academic staff, but they remain clustered at the bottom of the academic hierarchy as

they have done for several decades. Men continue to predominate at every level of academic

employment above level A (ABS, 2008) and research has shown that women hold ‘consistently lower

rank than men of comparable age, service, publication and degree qualification’ (Everett 1994:172).

Not only are women appointed at lower levels, they do not experience the same security of

employment (Allen & Castleman, 2001). As national studies of gender pay equity clearly demonstrate,

this pattern of employment also translates into significant differences in the levels of income attained

by women and by men in the sector (Probert, Ewer, and Whiting 1998). It was once assumed that with

more women coming into higher education and securing university employment that they would



eventually be promoted into senior positions and that overall gender parity was only a matter of time.

It is now apparent that this has not happened and that gender remains a key factor in determining

academic career outcomes (Bell, 2003). For this reason arguments about university staffing which

simply assume women’s inevitable progress in the academy are now being replaced by focused

inquiry into those factors that may contribute to women’s on-going disadvantaged status in the

university sector.

3 Women and Academic Careers

Terms such as ‘leaking pipeline’ (White 2004), ‘academic proletariat’ (Park 1996), and ‘hurdles’

(Toren & Moore 1998) have been used to highlight some of the processes leading to women’s under-

representation at senior levels in universities. White argues that ‘the paucity of women in senior

academia in Australia is in part a result of women being discouraged from enrolling in or completing

research higher degrees’ (2004: 231) and it seems clear that examination of the PhD context and post-

PhD appointments can provide significant insights as to why we see the gendered patterns of

university employment we currently do. Not enough is known about how gender currently shapes

aspirations, motivations and outcomes for women and men at this particular career point, although a

variety of issues have been identified as worthy of greater scrutiny. Allen and Castleman (2001) noted

in their research that women were more likely than men to be employed at level A than level B in their

early career years and that women also had lower levels of continuing employment. In seeking

explanations for these patterns, they suggest the importance of taking into account the ‘complexities of

male advantage’ and the ‘gendered nature of organizational dynamics’ as they operate in the academy

(156). Bell and Bentley (2005) speculate whether the completion of the PhD may operate as a critical

‘tipping point’ for women, a point where they may be prompted by a lack of confidence or by

competing priorities (e.g. family considerations) to make less strategic career choices. They note that

when women at the post-doctoral point opt for lower level appointments and research assistant

positions that they are often ‘deferring serious engagement with national competitive funding schemes

and a clear research oriented career trajectory’ (2005: 18). These concerns are supported by Lundy and

Warme whose study of part-time university employment led them to argue that women ‘have to be

taught to establish career patterns and priorities much earlier in their academic cycle’ (1990: 212).

Similarly, Doherty and Manfredi (2005) found that women moving through the academic system

demonstrated both less explicit patterns of career planning than their male counterparts and

significantly less confidence in the value and competitiveness of their achievements. Further,

university cultures do not easily allow academic staff to combine work and family responsibilities

(Forster 2000) and yet the precise impact of this on gaining early career traction has not been well-

documented. It is important, therefore, to examine whether—and to what extent— women’s greater

involvement in raising a family which can lead to career interruptions and part-time employment

affects their productivity and career progression relative to men.



3.1 The Influence of the PhD Experience

Postgraduate study has been identified as one critical point in the so-called ‘leaking pipeline’ that sees

women’s participation in higher education and academic employment diminish as they move upwards

in the system (Alper 1993, White 2004). Studies have revealed barriers to women’s participation in

research higher degrees and factors affecting their completion rates and overall satisfaction with the

degree experience; yet the advice literature directed toward those planning or undertaking research

higher degrees still pays surprisingly little attention to questions of gender (Leonard 2001: 5). White

(2004) has explored these issues in the Australian context and concludes that not only do women not

proceed to postgraduate study in the same numbers as men, but that when they do enrol they find

competing responsibilities impact on their ability to complete those degrees and establish academic

careers. She notes that:

The question of whether or not to embark on postgraduate research is one of a number of

choices, or lack of choices, facing women in an academic career. These include whether or not

one plans an academic career; tries to juggle full-time teaching and part-time postgraduate

study; chooses to complete a PhD before embarking on an academic career; chooses to do a

postdoctoral fellowship before becoming an academic; chooses to have children; and chooses

in an academic career to focus on teaching to research or both (228-229).

Isolation, lack of confidence, uneven access to resources, lack of funding (including part-time

scholarships), lack of access to networks and mentoring have all been cited as factors affecting

women’s capacity to complete higher degrees once enrolled. Research shows too that women

candidates stress the importance of personalized attention and feedback from supervisors in order to

maintain their confidence in their abilities (Nerad and Miller 1996:71). More women than men enrol

part-time and this also has a direct impact of the quality of their study experience. Deem and Brehony,

for example, noted that the part-timers they interviewed ‘found access to research cultures more

serendipitous and more difficult to sustain than did full-time students’ (2000: 158).

A series of Australian and international studies have found gender is a factor in the overall levels of

satisfaction graduate students report, with women routinely reporting lower levels of satisfaction with

the often isolating and competitive environment of postgraduate study (Nerad and Stewart 1991).

Fox’s study of more than 5,000 doctoral students and junior faculty in science and engineering in the

US found that women were less likely than men to report being taken seriously by faculty and to feel

respected by them; more likely to report their relationships with supervisors as characterised by social

distance and hierarchy rather than collegiality; and more likely to report lower levels of collaboration

in research and publications than male peers (2001: 685-660). A study of approx. 200 Australian PhD

graduates revealed that women were just as likely as their male counterparts to publish as sole author;

present their PhD research at national and international conferences; and to gain recognition for their



research contributions during their candidacy (Asmar 1999). However, they were more likely than

men to give a generally negative appraisal of their PhD environment; less likely to report receiving

research skills development; less likely to have published their research as first or co-author; and less

likely to characterize their research activities in terms of enthusiastic engagement. When disciplinary

differences were examined, women in the sciences were more likely to report social isolation and/or

discrimination during their PhD, while those in the humanities were more likely to report a lack of

assistance from supervisors’ networks post-graduation.

In terms of making the transition from postgraduate study to an academic career, gender differences

emerge with respect to accessing mentoring and professional development opportunities during the

PhD candidacy. Those graduates who publish from their PhD are more likely than others to continue

to be involved in research, particularly if they had featured as first-named author on a joint publication

(Bazely 2003: 263). Yet, research on early career sociologists by the American Sociological

Association found that women graduate students with and without children routinely reported

receiving less assistance with publishing during their candidacy than their male counterparts (ASA

2004: 5). The same report notes that ‘faculty publishing help in graduate school more than doubled the

odds of obtaining a tenure-track job at a research or doctoral university’ (2004: 10) for that cohort. Fox

(2001) not only found male respondents published more, they were also more likely to demonstrate

confidence in completing their degrees successfully and more likely to report receiving help from

supervisors with professional skills in research design, grant writing, team work and co-authoring.

When it comes to their aspirations for academic careers, women and men do not necessarily differ

greatly in what they seek. Van Anders’ survey of 486 Canadian graduate students found that male and

female respondents expressed very similar views on their career plans and equal interest in both

research and teaching. Women, however, ranked both mobility and plans for family higher than men,

leading her to conclude that ‘women may be more likely than men to include such related factors as

parental leaves, childcare and geographic mobility in their considerations’ and ‘may self-select away

from academia because of issues related to parenting and mobility’ (2004: 518).

The literature divides on the question of whether — and how — positive or negative experiences in

postgraduate research impact on later career choices. White (2004) speculates that negative

experiences may be one reason for women’s lower participation in postdoctoral fellowships and

Asmar (1999) notes lower levels of sustained and ‘passionate’ engagement with research among many

of the women PhD graduates in her cohort. Yet Bazely concludes from her study of the conditions

governing continuing research activity among Australian ECRs that ‘quality of the PhD

experience…does not appear to be a critical factor in determining the enthusiasm of the candidate for

continuing as a researcher’ (1999: 350). She nominated factors such as the availability or otherwise of

research funding or positions and levels of personal motivation, determination and resilience as far

more critical in determining long term outcomes for male and female PhD graduates.



3.2 Early Academic Career Formation

Those seeking to establish academic careers at this point in time encounter a very different academy

from their predecessors. Changes across the higher education sector in recent decades have had a

significant impact on career structures (Currie and Newson 1998; Marginson 2000). Patterns of early

career development are now marked by increasingly diverse pathways and by a tendency toward

horizontal movement. There is a proliferation and diversification of academic job roles and

specifications and many of these are associated with significant levels of instability and insecurity.

While the introduction of the HECE award in 1998 increased the opportunities for stable career

development by increasing rates of continuing employment in universities, more recent changes to the

industrial relations legislation governing universities permit the widespread use of contract

employment once again. As the ‘classic’ career model of academic life recedes, those entering the

profession today experience professional pathways that are ‘less linear, secure and straightforward’

than in the past when a single, uniform professional pathway characterized the majority of

appointments (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight 1998: 282). Further, recent public debate over the

implementation of a national system of research quality assessment has placed renewed focus on

research performance in academic career progression, with particular implications for those currently

seeking academic positions and encountering heightened expectations for research productivity

(Archer forthcoming; Harley 2003; Morley 2007).

Within discussion of this career phase, there is also notable variation in the definition of such

categories as ‘Early Career Researcher’ (Bazely 2003). The Australian Research Council (ARC)

defines this as an applicant in the first five years following the receipt of their doctorate, some

Australian universities also define those in their first five years of employment at levels A or B as

ECRs, and the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the UK lists those with 7 years’ post-

doctoral experience in their ECR category (Laudel and Gläser 2008). Bazely et al (1996) also note that

‘career interruption, where it occurs during the first few years of academic employment, serves to

extend the period during which one might be considered early career’ (xvi). Regardless of which

definition is applied, it is important when considering the question of post-PhD career formation to

acknowledge that the label ‘early career’ is not necessarily synonymous with that of ‘young

academic’. Equating the ECR with youth assumes an uninterrupted progression from first degree to

higher degree studies to initial academic appointment. However, as our survey cohort demonstrates,

for a variety of reasons many candidates now commence doctoral studies later. A growing skills

shortage nationally has meant that well-paid employment may offer an attractive alternative to

immediate further study for some first degree holders. There is a tendency, moreover, for women to

return to university to undertake higher degree studies after a period of paid employment or child-

rearing (Moses 1990, 1992) and to experience ‘indirect’ career paths (Lundy and Warme 1990: 209).

A PhD is often viewed as a mandatory requirement for gaining entry to academic employment.



However, Bazely (2003) found in her qualitative study of early career researchers in Australia that

participants in the social sciences often completed their doctorates at the same time as holding some

form of academic employment. Staff in applied disciplines who had been hired initially on the basis of

their industry experience reported completing a PhD as a consequence rather than a pre-condition of

their employment, especially following the redesignation of former of colleges of advanced education

as universities in the 1990s. For these reasons, it is more accurate to talk of recent PhD graduates as

‘new’ researchers rather than ‘young’ researchers.

A doctoral level qualification is generally considered an appropriate starting point but in practice it

does not guarantee a promising academic career. Not all those who complete PhDs necessarily go on

to be active and motivated researchers, even where they seek and secure university employment

(Bazely 1999). This has prompted increasing interest in the factors that promote successful early

career development — especially smooth transitions from ‘dependent’ to ‘independent’ research —

and those that inhibit such transitions (Laudel and Gläser 2008). As Poole (1991: 4) noted:

Research is a complex set of intellectual, social, environmental and cultural activities. It requires

thought, time, resources and a capacity to ask interesting and original questions. It also requires

complex knowledge bases — substantive and methodological. Research does not occur in a vacuum, it

requires development and nurturing.

In general, it is accepted that in the post-PhD period graduates will consolidate their research profiles

through publications, conference presentations, and peer networking. They would be expected, in due

course, to compete for internal and external research funding, often initially in collaboration with more

established researchers. In order to facilitate this, Trower (2006) reports, ‘new scholars want precisely

what older scholars wanted when they started: reasonable performance expectations, clear tenure

policies and fair practices, equity, professional development support, protected time, effective

mentoring, colleagueship and balance between work and home’ (76-77). Secure employment is

associated with positive outcomes in terms of general career development and research productivity.

Further factors associated with successful consolidation of research profiles include high levels of

determination and personal engagement with the research process; continued professional and

intellectual support from PhD supervisors and/or other senior researchers; the building of national and

international research networks, often with the assistance of supervisors or mentors; establishment of

scholarly habits with respect to publishing; participation in collaborative or team projects, particularly

those where skills in grant writing can be learned; flexible working conditions; access to internal

research funds for developing new research directions or pilot projects; access to travel funds for

attendance at national and international conferences; and the availability of study leave and paid

maternity leave (Bazely et al 1996; Dever, Morrison, Dalton, and Tayton 2006).



For many graduates, however, their initial post-PhD employment does not necessarily deliver optimal

conditions for their professional development and women in particular experience lower levels of

satisfaction with their appointments. This may be a direct result of the ‘greater personal costs women

pay to pursue a PhD career’ (Nerad et al 2008:14). A recent national survey of junior academic staff in

the United States found women were significantly less satisfied than men on two out of three measures

of workplace satisfaction, leading to the recommendation that — as women in the US were now

outnumbering men as doctoral graduates — more attention needed to be paid by institutions to ‘the

ways male and female faculty are differently affected by the institution’s policies, practices and

environment’ (Trower and Black 2004: 1). In the Australian setting, Asmar (1999) reported similar

gender differences in satisfaction levels among her ECR respondents, finding not only that women

PhDs were less satisfied than men at similar career stages, but also that ‘men appear to be reporting

more positively on their university research environment than women, who seem to be identifying

more of the constraints affecting their involvement’ (262). This correlates with research by Bazely et.

al in which male ECR respondents reported lower teaching and administrative loads which in turn was

associated with greater involvement in research (1996: xviii).

Those in sessional, part-time and contract employment report that they experience highly fragmented

time and limited access to research support, including being excluded by reason of their appointment

classification from seeking internal research funds and applying for study leave. It is important to note

that women have been more likely to find themselves hired into such positions (Bazely et al 1996:

xviii; Lundy and Warme 1990). Those on short-term contracts also report fewer opportunities to

establish crucial peer networks which can provide them with further employment prospects,

mentoring, and research opportunities: all of which are vital for career development (Bazely 2003:

265-66). Indeed, the nature of their appointments can mean that they find themselves excluded from

the general research culture in a department. While for some the availability of casual and part-time

work may be one of the attractive aspects of university employment, the relatively poor pay, the

precarious and often ‘seasonal’ nature of the available work and the lack of genuine career structures

may ultimately outweigh the perceived benefits. The difference in job satisfaction levels between

those who choose part-time academic work and those who are confined to it for lack of better

opportunities can be immense (Lundy and Warme 1990).

Unless departments moderate expectations for new appointees, those in secure appointments may also

find challenges in consolidating their professional profiles in the face of significant teaching and

curriculum development loads and new administrative responsibilities. In this regard, new PhD

graduates who are already established in academic posts have an advantage in that they are not

adjusting to new responsibilities at the same time as they are working to build up their research.

Laudel and Gläser conclude from their recent study of early career researchers in Australia that

graduates who have the benefit of some research-intensive phase (a postdoctoral fellowship, for



example) prior to accepting a teaching and research post fare better than those who go directly into

teaching and research appointments. ‘To begin a career as an independent researcher’, they argue,

‘requires more time for research than is provided by the standard academic position’ (2008: 402). This

supports Bazely et al’s earlier study which found postdoctoral fellows significantly out-publishing

peers in entry level lecturing positions, especially those at Level A (1996: 31), and findings by Asmar

whose cohort of ECRs nominated ‘teaching, administration, funding shortages and burnout’ as ‘major

inhibitors to further development of their research and publishing activity’ (1999: 267). While full-

time postdoctoral researchers generally do not encounter these same constraints, some nevertheless

report degrees of isolation, partly because they find themselves deprived of peer support and

mentoring. This is because it is assumed that they already have sufficient skills to devise and manage

an independent project and so are left alone to ‘get on with it’ (Delamont and Atkinson 2004: 52;

Dever, Morrison, Dalton, and Tayton 2006: 34). The general paucity of professional literature offering

appropriate guidance on what is entailed in ‘doing’ research means that new researchers without direct

input from those with experience are compelled to learn by trial and error (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight

1998: 282). It is also suggested that those who do not manage to establish a track record early are

unlikely to do so later on (Delamont and Atkinson 2004: 33-34; Lightfield 1971). Failure to

consolidate a research profile at this stage can have profound career impacts in a higher education

labour market that currently tends to favour applicants with established track records over investing in

promising candidates while they establish themselves.

3.3 Gender and Research Performance

Studies nationally and internationally point to a productivity gap between women and men in the area

of research. Women are still less likely to head research teams and register patents, and they often

have lower publication rates than their male counterparts (Bell 2003; Ding, Murray and Stuart 2006;

Nakhaie 2002). They are less likely to apply for research grants, although they are just likely as men to

be successful when they do (Bazely et al 1996). Those in the early stages of their academic careers and

those resuming their careers after a break remain particularly vulnerable to lagging in research output

relative to their male peers (Asmar 1999). The literature on gender and research performance attributes

women’s lower research performance to a range of factors. Rather than presuming some natural

‘feminine deficit’ in ability, recent work on the topic has generally sought instead to focus on the

influence of the long-standing gendered division of academic labour. Bagilhole and White (2003), for

example, argue that the differentiation of academic roles based on gender has women concentrating on

teaching and administration which allows men to focus on research and publishing — activities that

receive the highest rewards in terms of status, promotion and financial remuneration. Women’s choice

of discipline area is also seen as a key factor, with many female academics being concentrated in areas

which attract lower levels of external funding, which do not lend themselves to traditional models of

research or which are new to the academy (e.g. nursing) and therefore less research intensive (Bell and



Bentley 2005; Kirkpatrick 1997). The tendency for women to have less access to academic networks

and less confidence are viewed as contributing factors, along with their experience of less secure and

less continuous employment (Britton 1999: 72; Dean et al 1996; Valian 1985; Chrisler 1998). Work-

life pressures have also been cited as having an impact on women’s overall research opportunities,

with Probert (2005) arguing that research is often the only thing that can be put off in a schedule filled

with teaching, research, administration and family responsibilities. Finally, the possible role of explicit

gender bias in publication and grant reviewing has been raised – particularly in regard to the sciences

– but recent findings tend to discount this as a significant factor (Braishner, Symonds and Gemmell

2005; Ward and Donnelly, 1998).

Documented gender differences in publication output have led to considerable focus on the possible

causes of the so-called ‘productivity puzzle’ (Cole and Zuckerman 1984), as it is well established that

‘a lack of scholarly publications usually means great difficulties in obtaining permanency, promotion

and research funding’ (Asmar 1999: 256). The gender gap in publication output tends to be larger in

the sciences and humanities and smaller in the social sciences. A recent international study identified

that women made slower starts in their scientific publishing careers and clear discrepancies appeared

within two years of their first publication. Although they tended to increase their productivity later on,

it was thought that this early career shortfall could seriously affect women’s initial success in

appointments, promotions and funding and leave them playing ‘catch up’ across their careers

(Symonds et al 2006). Further studies have suggested that while women may publish less, the quality

of that work may be higher, according to citation levels (Long 1992; Schneider 1998). Leahy (2005)

contends that the critical issue in explaining gender differences in productivity may be specialization.

Comparing the output from two disciplines (sociology and linguistics), she argues that women tend to

specialize more than men and that specialization negatively affects productivity as scholars with more

diversified research programs have higher publication rates. Nakhaie (2002: 153) cautions, however,

that many studies of gender differences in publication productivity do not employ multivariate models.

Given that productivity correlates with both rank and institutional standing and that publication

patterns are generally shaped by discipline, an analysis of outputs for women and men of comparable

rank, institution and field will likely reveal less dramatic differences than studies that do not take such

factors into account.

The specific impact of marital status and childrearing on productivity has been examined and the

results suggest the relationship between these factors is complex and runs counter to many prevailing

assumptions. While it has been posited, for example, that persistent unequal distribution of domestic

and care labour could affect women’s publication output (Probert 2005), research on women’s and

men’s domestic lives and responsibilities does not necessarily support this (Nakhaie 2002). In a Dutch

study of paired academics drawn from social sciences, medicine, humanities and justice studies, the

women published slightly more than the men in the same field, despite carrying substantially higher



household and childcare loads (Noordenbos 1992). Similarly, just as women graduate students who

marry have been shown to have greater publication success than do single women (Price 2006),

various international studies have found that married women and those with children generally

publish more than academic women who are single and childless (Cole and Zuckerman 1987; Grant

and Ward 1991; Nakhaie 2002). Further, Fox (2005) determined that while the number of children a

woman has had little or no effect on productivity, the children’s ages did matter. In her sample,

women with pre-school children actually demonstrated higher publication rates than women with older

children and those without children. Differences across disciplines, however, suggest women who are

less reliant on empirical data are more likely to be successful in keeping up publications during their

childrearing years (Fox and Faver 1985: 547).

Current findings on the conditions that favour high research performance in women point to a diverse

range of personal, professional and institutional factors. In terms of time commitment, Taylor and

Martin (1987) recommend that a minimum of ten hours’ scholarly work a week is required for

productivity to be maintained. Acacio et al (1996) found among the Australian women researchers

they studied that high levels of personal engagement with the research area, a vibrant research

environment, appropriate research infrastructure, enjoyment of the research process itself, quality

feedback, and public recognition of achievements all rated highly. Indeed, a number of researchers

have linked passionate interest in their research topics and congenial methodologies to improved

research productivity (Gallos 1996; King 1996). Working in collaboration may also increase research

productivity, and not necessarily just for those in the sciences or in fields where collaboration is the

dominant mode of working (Britton 1999:76-78; Landry, Traoré and Godin 1996). Numerous studies

have pointed to the benefits arising from structured programs focusing on building women’s research

capacities (Devos 2001; Godden 1996) and from formal and informal mentoring (Groombridge and

Worden 2003; Higgs 2003). Chrisler (1998) identified the capacity for women to organize their lives

around their research and writing and to ‘make productivity a way of life’ as a further critical factor,

although she found herself questioning how many women could actually achieve this in practice.

Finally, countering the claim that teaching will necessarily distract from or undermine women’s

research performance, the interaction between teaching and research has been identified as vital and

likely to lead to excellence in both (Curthoys 1995; Dever, Morrison, Dalton, and Tayton 2006: 16).

3.4 Academic Culture, Gender and Parenthood

Organizations act as critical places for the creation and reinforcing of gender norms and there is now a

growing body of literature that identifies the gendered nature of universities as organizational cultures

and analyzes how this shapes the careers of the women and men who work in them. Fox and Colatrella

observe:



women’s participation, performance, and advancement are not a simple function of their

individual characteristics, such as prestige of doctoral origins, training or skills. Rather their

participation and attainments also reflect and are affected by features of organizational

contexts in which they work, including work climates and culture, work structures, evaluative

practices, and reward patterns, among other factors. (2006: 377)

The organization of academic work has tended to institutionalize male experiential norms and to

define success in highly individualistic and competitive terms. While increasing numbers of women

have successfully gained employment in the higher education sector in recent decades, assumptions

about linear employment tracks, the freedom to work long hours and the prioritizing of work over

other commitments have tended to remain normative. Given this, it is not surprising to find that

women are significantly more likely than men to report that ‘gender’ has been a major factor in

determining their academic career opportunities and decisions (Lundy and Warme 1990). The shift

away from a model of academic work based around notions of ‘collegiality’ to one governed by

increasingly levels of managerialism has not lessened this dependence on male cultural norms. The

new ‘performativity’ which constructs academic work as a set of auditable tasks to be processed

efficiently reveals itself to be far from gender-neutral in its operations: it sponsors the same privileging

of work over personal life and rewards the ‘independent, lone individual with no other commitments’

(Halford, Savage and Witz 1997: 264-5) over those whose time is constrained by other demands.

Within this environment, women are frequently caught in the difficult position of trying to ‘perform’

like men in order to secure their professional status, at the same time as negotiating traditional gender

stereotypes relating to the division of academic labour. Indeed, while the organizational culture of

universities effectively denies the realities of many women’s lives, the same institutions nevertheless

depend heavily on women as employees. Park (1996) argues that universities resemble traditional

patriarchal families where men are the ‘bread winners’ and women carry out the routine,

unacknowledged background maintenance work. Women represent a valuable institutional resource

and for this reason ‘a particular form of feminine identity and behaviour is sought after and

encouraged by organizational managers’ (Ramsay 2007: 35).

In this context, male academics’ capacity to combine family and career generates limited commentary

only. Studies suggest that family responsibilities do not have negative effects for men’s academic

careers (Wilson 2003) and that they may in fact benefit from marriage and fatherhood (Sadrozinski,

Nerad and Cerny 2003). Drawing on a US survey of social science graduates awarded PhDs between

1995 and 1999, Nerad et al report that while ‘both men and women wrote about how careers limited

family life and family lives limited careers…women’s careers more often were constrained by

marriage and family’ (2008:14). While Asmar found in her survey of Australian early career

academics that male respondents (20%) were only slightly less likely than women (29%) to report

family commitments inhibiting research activities, in the qualitative component of her study she also



observed that where male respondents mentioned ‘family’ and ‘children’, it ‘was rarely their own

children they were referring to’ (1999: 261). However, she concedes that ‘it seems likely male partners

everywhere are now doing more to help than in bygone times’ (268).

Issues surrounding the impact of childbirth and childcare responsibilities on women’s academic

careers sponsor vigorous debates in both professional and scholarly literature concerning whether or

when to have children, on the ‘race between the tenure clock and the biological clock’, and the risks of

being shifted off the tenure track onto the so-called ‘family track’ (Armenti 2004b; Coiner and George

1998; Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2004; Wilson 2003). Much of this literature is inspired by the

particularities of the North American tenure system, where inflexible tenure decision timeframes and

limited family leave programs are argued to have a dramatic impact on women’s capacities to balance

work and family, and thus on their representation and progress within institutions of higher education

(Kolker Finkel, Olswang and She 1994). Nevertheless, women elsewhere also face challenges in

reconciling their status as academics with their desire for and/or experience of motherhood and these

issues can be particularly acute for early career academics should their initial employment contracts

coincide with their childbearing and childrearing years. Until quite recently, academic motherhood

was a largely ‘silent’ experience. This arose partly as a consequence of the sector’s failure to

acknowledge parental responsibilities and partly as a result of individual women opting to disguise or

downplay their maternal status lest they be perceived as lacking commitment to their paid employment

(Leonard and Malina 1994). This ‘invisibility’ not only reinforced the perception of the

incompatibility of motherhood and academic work, it also promoted significant isolation among

women actively seeking to combine the two or weighing up their options.

While current demographics suggest a greater proportion of women now seeking university

employment are likely to have or to want families than was the case in the past, the academy is

generally considered to have been ‘slow’ in responding to the needs of ‘the increasing share of PhDs

who are women and who do not wish to remain childless’ (ASA 2004: 1). A substantial body of

literature is now devoted to questioning the relative merits of starting a family while completing

postgraduate qualifications or waiting until secure employment has been achieved, as well as

exploring the impact of children on a woman’s likelihood of gaining desired employment or of making

satisfactory career progress once appointed (Armenti 2004a; Lynch 2002, Wilson 2003). When

weighing family in relation to the building of an academic career, women are reported to adopt a

number of strategies. These include: foregoing children, delaying having children, timing births to

coincide with breaks in the academic year, spacing births in relation to tenure decisions, seeking

employment in less demanding and less research intensive higher education settings, and striving to

locate institutions that offer more supportive environments for those who have or plan families

(Armenti 2004b; Drago et al 2006; Perna 2001; Thornton 2004; Wilson 1999). The American

Sociological Association’s longitudinal study of early career success among PhD graduates in



sociology concluded that ‘women who delay childbirth until tenure do better at achieving early career

success, and more of them delay childbirth than do their male colleagues’ (2004: 2). They also found

that those who had children while undertaking postgraduate study fared better than those who had

children after graduation but ahead of achieving continuing employment. They conclude, however,

that there is no ‘best time’ to have a baby, as ‘all times involve trade-offs’ (11).

Both Australian and international findings show women experience greater work/family stress than

men and report making ‘career sacrifices’ in the interests of managing conflicting demands (Armenti

2004b; Forster 2000; O’Laughlin and Bischoff 2005; Probert 2005). While major improvements in

institutional policy and practice have taken place across the Australian higher education sector, the

potential benefits are still being off-set by concerns about possible negative career consequences of

taking advantage of enhanced leave and work/life initiatives. Such policy initiatives — through their

implied or assumed address to women — can also have the unintended effect of reinforcing the

prevailing domestic division of labour that cedes women principal responsibility for household

management and childcare (Bardoel 2005). In this way, they can in fact affirm rather than alleviate the

‘double burden’ imposed upon women in paid employment. Further, while macro-institutional level

support is undeniably important, O’Laughlin and Bischoff found that concrete support from

departments and life-partners was even more critical to alleviating family-related stress and improving

both job performance and job satisfaction for women. They also pointed to good childcare

arrangements and positive workplace relationships as factors likely to lessen work-family strain

(2005:103-4). The flexibility available within many academic workplaces has been shown to support

women’s capacity to balance work and family life by offering variable starting and finishing times as

well as opportunities to work from home. It must be recognized, however, that this same flexibility

can also contribute to the erosion of meaningful distinctions between home and the workplace and

between being ‘on’ and ‘off’ the job, thereby rendering ‘flexibility’ just another means by which

professional commitments encroach on personal lives (Dever 2006; Eveline and Currie 2006). Overall,

it appears that regardless of the measures available to assist with work-life balance, ‘women faculty

themselves bear significant responsibility for achieving their own sense of balance’ (Ward and Wolf-

Wendel 2004: 234). In common with the prevailing neo-liberal sentiment that academics should ‘self-

manage’, women are also likely to hold themselves responsible where this balance cannot be achieved

(Davies and Bansel 2005). While the principal focus of research has been upon the challenges of

balancing work and family for women academics, the positive aspects of academic motherhood have

also been tracked. Research shows that family can provide a welcome source of respite, perspective

and self-esteem. The ‘inflexible’ or non-negotiable nature of family commitments is even offered as a

useful ‘break’ on otherwise relentless work demands (Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2004).

Armenti suggests that rather than focusing on the ways in which women adjust their career and family

aspirations to fit current academic structures, the question should be ‘have academic careers evolved



to meet the changing needs of women’? (2004b: 65). The literature on good practice with respect to

balancing work and family suggests it is imperative that institutions not only offer policies that

anticipate the needs of faculty with family responsibilities but that they also monitor their usage and

efficacy and remain open to further positive innovations. In short, the mere promulgation of policy is

not sufficient. Further, as Trower notes, ‘while individual academic units may be limited in their

ability to create policies that enhance flexibility for faculty, they can provide the environment crucial

to their use and benefits’ (2006:81). This includes building a climate where family commitments are

‘normalised’ and where staff are encouraged to take advantage of available policy provisions without

fear of career penalties. As the academic labour market becomes more competitive and candidates

review positions in terms of their wider needs and aspirations, an institution’s track record on this

front may become as critical as questions of salary and prestige to its ability to attract and retain staff.

3.5 Research in Australia

In Australia there have been relatively few studies on medium to long-term PhD graduate outcomes.

“The Postgraduate Destination Survey” periodically collects data from graduates but is limited in the

amount of information that it can provide since the survey census date is approximately four months

after completion of the qualification. A recent study conducted by Thompson et al (2001) investigated

postdoctoral graduate outcomes of researchers who have left the postdoctoral system since 1994.

“Waiting in the Wings” is a similar study conducted by the Australian Research Council (ARC) into

the early careers of Australian academic researchers (ARC 1996). Both studies were limited to PhD

graduates who had taken the postdoctoral career track.

Shortfalls in Australian research led the Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA) in its 1999

scoping study on the career paths of PhD graduates to conclude that gaps in current knowledge of PhD

graduates’ career paths are quite substantial. The GCCA proposed a large-scale study of PhD

graduates’ employment outcomes (GCCA 1999).

The growing awareness of the changing circumstances of PhD employment and the expansion of

Australian research higher degree training have recently led to increased research activity in this area.

Studies researching PhD experiences and student aspirations (Harman, K. 2002, 2004; Harman, G.

2002, Neumann 2003), PhD supervision (Sinclair 2004) and disciplinary developments in the

production of PhDs (Evans 2004) have been completed over the previous few years. As part of the

project “Reconceptualising the Doctoral Experience” two case studies are being conducted, one at the

Australian National University and the other at Deakin University, researching the interrelationship

between work and study during the PhD (Cumming 2006). “The Research Pathways Project” at

Monash University is following up the Monash PhD Social Science graduate cohorts from 1995 and

2000 (Monash University n.d.).



Results from an empirical study of the quality of PhD training of recent PhD graduates from the Go8

universities was published by Western et al (2007). The research aimed at identifying those elements

of PhD programs that were associated with successful employment career outcomes. In particular, the

study was concerned with the attributes acquired by PhD graduates during their studies and their

perceptions of the relevance of these attributes for subsequent career success. The study relied upon a

survey of the employment trajectories and experiences of a cohort of recent PhD graduates across all

disciplines from the Go8 universities, along with retrospective evaluations of their doctoral training,

and assessments of the skills and knowledge requirements of their current jobs. The kinds of

experiences and skills that respondents believed were particularly important included research

methods and data analysis skills, analytic and problem solving skills, team-based, interdisciplinary and

collaborative experiences, opportunities for networking and participation in structured programs

The findings from this PhD Outcome Survey also highlighted the critical role of supervisor mentoring

and professional socialization in producing strong career outcomes. There was evidence that academic

and professional networking activities during the PhD were associated with more favourable

evaluations and better labour market outcomes than models of PhD training which promoted

individual and isolated research activity. These were also factors where some significant differences

emerged between male and female respondents to the survey. The data from this survey provide a

unique Australian resource that allows further detailed examination of these questions and it is to an

analysis of the data from this study concerning gender differences in post-PhD employment that we

now turn.

4 Methodology

The 2006 PhD Outcome Survey (Western et al 2007) was conducted across the Group of Eight

Universities (Go8) for PhD graduates who obtained their PhDs between 1999 and 2001. The survey

used both paper and web based questionnaires. 5,700 graduates were invited to participate and 2,020

completed questionnaires were received representing a response rate of 35 percent. Of the 2,020

respondents, 1,996 were considered to be in-scope and their responses were used as the basis of this

report. The proportions for graduations in 1999, 2000 and 2001 in the sample were 32 percent, 34

percent and 33 percent which reflects the proportions for all graduations from Go8 universities over

these years (1999, 33%; 2000, 34% and 2001, 34%) (Calculated from DEST’s Aggregated Past

Course Completion File).

The design of the 2006 PhD Outcome Survey was influenced by the review of other relevant studies

and our assessment of the important questions whose resolution was dependent on a more substantial

evidence base. The development of the 2006 PhD Outcome Survey content focused on five areas:

• Academic history



• Employment history

• A detailed assessment of most recent employment experience

• The PhD experience

• An evaluation of PhD training and its relevance to employment

The survey also sought information on occupation, industry and field of study using classifications

developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and coded according to ABS coding protocols.

The following protocols were used:

• Field of study was coded using the Australian Standard Classification of Education (ASCED)

• Industry was coded using the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification

(ANZSIC) 1993

• Occupation was coded using the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO

second edition)

The analysis is based on the 1,996 in-scope respondents. Results are presented as counts, percentages

and mean scores. Percentages relate to the number of valid responses and exclude not applicable and

missing values. Percentages are rounded and do not always add up to 100 percent. Section 6

investigates the determinants of employment outcomes and gender differences by modelling selected

variables, such as earnings and university employment.

5 Results

The 2006 PhD Outcome Survey is one of the first studies to provide a comprehensive analysis of PhD

graduates’ perceptions of research training programs in major Australian Universities and their early

career employment outcomes. The particular aim of the analysis reported here is to assess gender

differences and to evaluate potential determinants and consequences of such differences. The major

findings of the research are presented in four sections. After providing a brief analysis of the

demographic characteristics of respondents, we provide an evaluation of the PhD experience reported

by male and female respondents in section 5.2. Our aim here is to illuminate gender differences in the

context of PhD research and, in particular to focus on those gender differences in the ways in which

respondents’ PhD study was embedded in the academic social environment that we might expect

would have significant consequences for subsequent career development. Section 5.3 turns to an

analysis of the employment outcomes of male and female PhD graduates. The results illustrate the

extent to which significant gender differences characterize particular employment circumstances in the

university sector such as employment status and earnings. We are also interested in the extent to which

gender differences in such employment outcomes reflect gender differences during the PhD

experience ranging from supervisory support to responsibilities for families and childcare.



5.1 Demographic characteristics of PhD graduates

Of the PhD graduates in the 2006 PhD Outcome Survey, 46 percent of respondents were female. The

proportion of females in the study compares well with the proportions of all PhD female graduates

from the Go8 between 1999 and 2001 (Table 1). The Go8 proportions reflect the gender proportions of

all PhD graduates from Australian Universities during the period.

Table 1: PhD completions in Australia by gender (1999-2001)

Gender 2006 PhD Outcome Survey PhD graduates from Go8

universities 1999-2001¹² PhD graduates in Australia

1999-2001²

n % N % N %

Female 912 46 2,773 42 4,741 42

Male 1,067 54 3,775 58 6,574 58

Total 1,979 100 6,548 100 11,315 100

¹ Source: UPAG files ² Figures were calculated from yearly Figures given in DEST, Students 2000: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Students 2001: Selected Higher Education Statistics and Students 2002 (First Half Year): Selected Higher Education Statistics

Approximately 77 percent of respondents were between 30 and 49 years of age. Figure 1 shows the

age-gender structure of all respondents. The figure also shows that male respondents outnumbered

female respondents in all categories from ages 30 to 54.

Figure 1: Age and Gender characteristics of PhD Graduates (1999-2001)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 050100150200 250 300

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65+ Male Female



If account is taken of respondents’ ages at graduation, their age structure mirrors closely the age

structure of all PhD graduates from Australian universities and also the age structure of all PhD

graduates from the Go8 universities in that period. This information is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Go8 and Australian PhD graduates age at time of graduation

Age group

PhD Outcome Survey

%ª n=1974

Go8 PhD graduates¹

% N=6548

Australian PhD graduates²

% N=11315

20-24 .. 1 1

25-29 26 32 26

30-39 42 41 39

40-49 20 18 23

50-59 10 6 9

60+ 3 1 2 Note: Age at graduation was estimated by year 2000-year of birth. ¹ Source: UPAG files ² Figures were calculated from yearly Figures in DEST, Students 2000: Selected Higher Education Statistics, Students 2001: Selected Higher Education Statistics and Students 2002 (First Half Year): Selected Higher Education Statistics.

Most graduates were married or living in de-facto relationships (77%), while approximately 15 percent

were never married. There were some significant differences between female and male graduates as

portrayed in Table 3.

Table 3: Marital status of PhD graduates

Marital status Female %

Male %

Total %

De-facto 13 10 11

Married 62 70 66

Separated 3 2 2

Divorced 6 3 4

Widowed 1 0.4 1

Never married 16 14 15

More than a third of the survey respondents undertook their PhD in a Natural or Physical Sciences

field (36%), just over a quarter in Society and Culture (26%), ten percent in Engineering and 12

percent in Health. As shown in Table 4, Men tended to predominate in enrolments in the natural and

physical sciences and engineering while a significantly higher proportion of women graduated in the

disciplinary areas of social sciences, humanities and health.



Table 4: Go8 and Australia PhD graduates by discipline - 2001.

Discipline

Female

% n=905

Male

% n=1061

Total PhD Survey

1999-2001%

n=1982

Go8 completions

in 2001¹

% N=2212

All PhD completions

in 2001²

% N=3865

Natural and Physical Sciences 34 38 36 30 27

Information Technology 1 4 3 2 2

Engineering and Related Technologies 5 15 10 11 11

Architecture and Building .. 1 .. 1 1

Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies 3 5 4 6 6

Health 15 10 12 18 14

Education 6 1 3 5 8

Management and Commerce 2 3 3 4 6

Society and Culture 32 22 26 23 23

Creative Arts 2 1 2 1 2 Note: The figures for the Go8 and Australia exclude the years 1999 and 2000 because prior to 2001, available publications by DEST show a field of study classification different from the current ASCED classification. ¹ Source: UPAG files ² National Figures were taken from DEST, Students 2002 (First Half Year): Selected Higher Education Statistics.

5.2 The PhD experience

We turn first to issues surrounding the motivations of respondents for entering a PhD program.

Respondents were presented with a range of reasons for undertaking a PhD and asked how important

each one was in explaining why they began their PhD studies. These questions were designed to tap

intrinsic motivations for starting a PhD (interest in research, interest in the thesis, interest in the

discipline area, for personal satisfaction, for intellectual and academic development) and extrinsic or

instrumental reasons that were linked to career advancement (the PhD was a necessary job credential,

to facilitate career change, to improve career prospects, to acquire specialist skills, and to improve

pay). In general, the pattern of aspirations of men and women were similar with both groups rating

intrinsic reasons more highly than instrumental ones. However, as detailed in Table 5, female

graduates were significantly more likely than male graduates to report that they pursued their PhD for

such intrinsic motivations as intellectual and academic development, interest in the discipline area,

personal satisfaction, to develop a range of specialist skills, because of interest in the discipline area

and interest in the thesis topic. These are important findings in light of further analysis of the data

reported elsewhere (Western et al 2007) that links motivations to undertake a PhD with later

employment characteristics such as income and appointments in universities.



Table 5: Gender differences in reasons for commencing a PhD

Reason to commence PhD Female mean score

Male mean score

Interest in doing research 4.64 4.51

For intellectual and academic development *** 4.54 4.39

Interest in the discipline area ** 4.50 4.41

For personal satisfaction ** 4.51 4.39

Interest in the thesis topic ** 4.36 4.26

To improve career prospects 3.87 3.83

To develop a range of specialist skills *** 3.94 3.77

I needed credential for the job/ career I wanted to pursue 3.59 3.59

The prestige that comes from having a PhD 3.25 3.32

Encourage by a colleague/ lecturer *** 3.42 3.17

To increase chances of better pay 3.01 3.04

To facilitate career change 3.02 3.02

*p<0.05, **p<0.01,***p<0.001

PhD research is not simply an individual undertaking but involves a social process through which

research practice is embedded in the academic and social environment of the enrolling university. The

data presented in Table 6 indicates that important aspects of these processes differ for women and

men. Female PhD graduates are much more likely to complete their PhD as a solo project and are

significantly less likely to be part of a research group for at least some time during their PhD. They

were also less likely to undertake research that constituted an independent contribution to a larger

research program. Being involved in a research group or research program during the PhD has some

important consequences for developing collaboration and networking skills that impact on future

employment opportunities and career paths. In the absence of these opportunities, greater

responsibility is placed on supervisory practices and particularly support from supervisors for the

development of work skills and practices that are crucial for future employment and promotion. It is to

a consideration of these supervisory practices that we now turn.



Table 6: Research and supervisory context of PhD enrolment

Context of PhD Female %

Male %

Total %

Part of research group (wholly or partly) ** 44 53 49

Part of a Cooperative Research Centre ** 7 11 9

Supported by at least one scholarship 81 79 80

Employed during PhD ** 82 77 79

Employed in academia 82 77 81

Supervised by one supervisor 41 43 42

Supervised by two supervisors 43 46 44

PhD research was an independent contribution to a larger research program 19 23 21

PhD research was a solo project 74 68 71

PhD research was a part of a team project 7 9 9

**p<0.01

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they perceived that their principal supervisor

helped them with various aspects of the PhD experience. The items all refer to the development of

skills and practical knowledge that might be expected to play a critical role in career development. In

particular, the acquisition and utilisation of these skills is a predictor of success in academic careers

that place a high value on research funding and publication. As detailed in Table 7, respondents

reported that their principal PhD supervisors were most supportive in developing relevant skills and

knowledge and to a lesser extent in encouraging or assisting with integration into the research

Table 7: Gender differences in type of support from supervisor

Type of support from supervisor Female mean score

Male mean score

Helped to develop relevant skills and knowledge 3.61 3.65

Encouraged to publish own work *** 3.45 3.74

Encouraged to give conference papers * 3.44 3.59

Helped to develop professional relationships with others in the field ** 3.01 3.19

Assisted in gaining employment ** 2.29 2.49

Assisted in preparing proposals for funding *** 2.09 2.30

*p<0.05, **p<0.01,***p<0.001

community. However, the most noteworthy results are that female graduates reported significantly less

encouragement than males in those areas relevant to building academic careers: to publish their own

work; to prepare funding proposals; to give conference papers; and to develop professional



relationships. In general, assistance in gaining employment was significantly more likely to be

available to male rather than female PhD candidates.

Support from supervisors and particularly the extent to which they helped to develop professional

relationships with others in the field appeared to have important consequences for integration into the

professional community and the development of professional identities. Respondents were asked to

indicate the extent of their involvement in their professional community on four dimensions. Each of

these items was considered to be an important marker of successful career development. As Table 8

shows female graduates were less likely to be engaged with their professional community on all four

dimensions. In particular, female graduates were significantly less likely than male graduates to

interact with professionals outside academia and with visiting scholars during the course of their PhD

studies.

Table 8: Gender differences in involvement in professional community during PhD enrolment

Type of involvement in professional community Female mean score

Male mean score

Presented work at conference 3.39 3.43

Interacted with visiting scholars * 2.77 2.89

Interacted with professionals outside academia ** 2.47 2.65

Participated in organising conferences 2.09 2.13

*p<0.05, **p<0.01

The career aspirations of respondents at the time of their PhD enrolment is indicated in Figure 2. Most

graduates favoured a career as a university academic. Careers as researchers outside academia and

work in the professional field were also nominated by a substantial number of respondents.

Figure 2: Career aspirations on completion of PhD

7

9

19

15

34

10

13

24

26

21

15

20

18

25

18

18

18

11

13

11

51

39

27

21

16

0 20 40 60 80 100

Manager/executive (n=1891)

Consultant (n=1895)

Work in professional field (n=1915)

Researcher outside academia(n=1907)

University academic (n=1956)

To a great extent To a considerable extent To some extent To a minor extent Not at all



Table 9 displays the mean scores for the responses concerning career aspirations for female and male

graduates. There were no significant gender differences for careers as a university academic or

professional. However, significantly greater numbers of male graduates than female graduates aspired

to become a researcher outside academia, a consultant or a manager/executive .

Table 9: Gender differences in career aspiration on completion of PhD

Type of aspiration Female mean score

Male mean score

University academic 3.47 3.48

Researcher outside academia *** 2.88 3.16

Work in professional field 2.92 3.04

Consultant*** 2.16 2.49

Manager/ executive *** 1.90 2.14

***p<0.001

5.3 Career and employment experience Post-PhD

At the time of the survey, 90 percent of respondents were in employment. As Table 10 shows, 83

percent of male graduates described themselves as employees compared with 78 percent of female

graduates. On the other hand, a significantly higher proportion of female graduates were looking after

the home or family.

Table 10: Employment status by gender - 2006

Employment status Female %

Male %

Employee 78 83

Employer with employees 3 7

Self employed without employees 4 4

Studying/ training 2 2

Unemployed looking for work 2 2

Looking after home/ family 7 1

Other 4 2

Almost 50 percent of respondents were working at universities with 464 male PhD graduates and 477

female PhD graduates so employed. Of those graduates employed at universities almost 42 percent

worked at one of the G08 Universities, 32 percent worked at other universities within Australia and 26

percent worked at international universities. In contrast to male graduates, significantly more female

graduates worked at Australian universities and fewer female graduates worked at international



universities (X² (2, N= 921) =22.89, p<.001). The gender distribution across different employment

sectors presented in Table 11 shows that a significantly larger proportion of female graduates (55%)

were employed in universities compared with male graduates (45%).

Table 11: Employment sector and gender - 2006

Employment sector Female %

Male %

University 55 45

Other research organisation 14 18

Non-research public sector organisation 14 15

Non-research private sector organisation 11 15

Other organisation 7 6

Respondents were asked about their employment contracts in their current or most recent job. The

majority of respondents were in permanent employment (63%) while a sizeable group of about a third

of all respondents was in less secure (fixed-term or casual) employment. As we noted earlier, those in

sessional, part-time and contract employment report that they experience highly fragmented time and

limited access to research support, including being excluded by reason of their appointment

classification from seeking internal research funds and applying for study leave. Table 12 shows that

women are significantly more likely to find themselves hired into such positions with 36 percent of

female graduates describing their employment status as fixed term or casual compared to 29 percent of

males. On the other hand male graduates were much more likely to be in permanent or continuous

employment (66%) compared to female graduates (59%). While for some the availability of casual

and part-time work may be one of the attractive aspects of university employment, the relatively poor

pay, the precarious and often ‘seasonal’ nature of the available work and the lack of genuine career

structures may ultimately outweigh the perceived benefits.

Table 12: Employment status in current/most recent job by gender

Female n=874 Col %

Male n=1028 Col %

Total n=1902 Col %

A permanent, continuous employee 59 66 63

A fixed term employee 31 27 29

A Casual employee 5 2 3

Self-employed without employees 4 3 3

An employer with employees 1 2 2

Total 100 100 100

Overall 18 percent of respondents were working part-time (less than 35 hours per week). The

relationship between employment status, part- and full-time employment and gender is displayed in



Table 13. The table shows the great majority of males were in full-time employment and a much

higher proportion of these were in permanent positions than females who were employed full-time.

Many more female graduates worked part-time and tended to be in casual or fixed term positions.

What the data cannot tell us is whether women actively sought these latter types of positions or were

channelled into them, a pattern that has been noted elsewhere (Lundy and Warme 1990). However,

lower levels of satisfaction among female respondents might indicate greater numbers of them aspired

to fulltime and continuing positions than were currently holding them.

Table 13: Employment status, full-time/part-time work by gender

Employment status Full-time Part-time

Female%

Male %

Female%

Male %

Permanent/continuous 27 39 26 7

Fixed-term 13 16 21 7

Casual 0.3 0.1 11 6

Self-employed 1 1 7 2

Employer 1 1 1 ..

The vast majority of survey respondents worked in Professional occupations while 14 percent were

classified as Managers or Administrators. Table 14 shows that men were significantly more likely to

be in managerial and administrative positions than women.

Table 14: Occupation in current/most recent main job by 2006 PhD Survey and PhD holders in Australia, 2002

Occupation 2006 PhD Outcome Survey PhD current job

ABS 2002 n=65,200¹

% Female

% Male

%

Professionals 80 78 83

Managers and Administrators 12 16 10

Associate Professionals 3 2 2

Other 6 5 -

Note: Occupations are based on main groups of ASCO second edition. ¹ The ABS Figures are based on the ABS Survey of Education & Work, May 2002, highest non-school educational qualification held (Doctorates), by Occupation of current job, employed persons aged 16 to 64 years. The ABS advises that due to the relative small number of holders of PhDs in the population, these from survey data estimated Figures should be treated carefully.

The G08 universities employed a higher proportion of graduates on fixed term contracts (55%) than

other Australian universities (37%) and international universities (36%). While female graduates were

equally successful in gaining employment in G08 Universities, significantly fewer of them were in

supervisory or managerial positions compared to male graduates and this gender difference was more



pronounced for graduates with children. No significant gender difference occurred at other Australian

universities. Table 15 shows the relationship between gender and managerial or supervisory position

for graduates working at Go8, International and other Australian universities.

Table 15: Gender distribution and position for PhD graduates working at universities

University type G08 Universities Other Australian

universities International universities

Female %

Male %

Female %

Male %

Female %

Male %

Managerial position 5 11 22 18 21 78

Supervisory position 26 36 33 34 28 34

Other position 69 53 46 47 51 58

As might be expected the differences in employment status for men and women discussed above

manifested themselves in income levels. Thirteen percent of respondents reported annual gross salaries

below $40,000 and 16 percent above $100,000. Table 16 shows the income for female and male

graduates and illustrates that a substantially higher proportion females graduates receive lower income

than male graduates. Thirty-five percent of women working in universities earned under $60,000

compared with 28 percent of men. For graduates working at universities these gender differences in

income level were statistically significant only for women with children working at the G08

universities. The differences were even greater in other organizations where the percentages for those

earning under $60,000 were 40 percent female and 21 percent male.

Table 16: Annual gross salaries by gender and organisation

Salary University Other organisation

Female %

Male %

Female %

Male %

$1 – $9,999 4 4 3 1

$10,000 – $19,999 5 3 3 3

$20,000 – $29,999 4 3 4 2

$30,000 – $39,999 5 2 7 2

$40,000 – $59,999 17 16 23 13

$60,000 – $79,999 42 45 33 30

$80,000 – $99,999 17 17 16 19

$100,000 – $124,999 4 7 7 14

$125,000 – $149,999 2 2 2 7

$150,000 or more 1 2 3 11

The figures include graduates working abroad (including international students).



5.4 Families and employment outcomes for PhD graduates

Sixty-two percent of PhD graduates in the 2006 PhD Outcome Survey, (60% females; and 55% males)

reported that they had children. As Table 17 indicates, a significantly lower proportion of female

graduates did not have children.

Table 17: Number of children by gender

Number of Children

Female %

n=906

Male %

n=1059

Total %

n=1965

0 40 34 37

1 19 21 20

2 28 28 28

3 11 12 11

4 2 4 3

5 and more .. 1 1

Total 100 100 100

When considering employment sector differences for graduates living with or without children,

significant gender differences only occurred for graduates with children. Table 18 indicates that

female PhD graduates working in Go8 Universities are significantly more likely not to have children

than those employed in other universities.

Table 18: Females PhD graduates employed in universities by living with children

Employment Children in family

%

No children

%

Total n=

Other universities 70 30 129

Go8 University 61 39 244

Total 64 36 100

Pearson chi2(1) = 2.7759 Pr = 0.096

While gender differences for graduates living without children were non-significant, they were highly

significant for graduates with children. Table 19 displays the gender distribution for the different types

of employment contracts and whether graduates were living with children. Sixty three percent of male

graduates with children were permanent employees while only 54 percent of female graduates with

children held such employment contracts. Furthermore, 43 percent of female graduates with children

were employed on a fixed term or casual basis compared to 32 percent of male graduates with

children.



Table 19: Employment contract, gender and living with children

Employment contract

Living with children

Female %

Male %

Yes No Yes No

Permanent/ continuous employee 26 28 37 26

Fixed term employee 18 18 17 14

Casual employee 3 2 1 1

Self employed without employees 2 2 1 2

Employer with employees 1 0.4 1 1

In turning to the actual work activities that PhD graduates undertake in their current jobs, in what

might be termed the labour process as opposed to the labour market, a number of interesting patterns

emerge from the data which is presented in Table 20 showing mean scores for female and male

graduates regarding the different work activities. Significant gender differences occurred for seven of

the work activities listed below. In particular, female graduates worked to a greater extent in academic

teaching and in advising or mentoring students, while male graduates worked to a greater extent in

undertaking research, managing and supervising others and product development.

Table 20: Gender differences for work activities

Work activities

Gender

Female mean score

Male mean score

Data analysis/ making sense of evidence 3.68 3.75

Undertaking research 3.61 3.77*

Managing projects 3.65 3.60

Preparing publication 3.27 3.26

Giving talks/ presentations 3.24 3.25

Advising/ mentoring colleagues/ co-workers 3.17 3.25

Advising/ mentoring students 3.08 2.89*

Managing or supervising others 2.83 2.99*

Training others 2.86 2.83

Academic teaching 2.73 2.55*

Providing professional advice to customers, clients or patients 2.42 2.48

Professional practice 2.28 2.35

Employee relations including hiring and training 1.97 1.99

Financial management/ accounting 1.93 2.02



Designing creative works 1.85 2.02**

Customer relations/ customer liaison 1.91 1.97

Product development 1.61 1.99***

Sales, marketing, public relations 1.65 1.78

Commercialisation of products of research 1.45 1.71***

*p<0.05, **p<0.01,***p<0.001

Graduates reported the extent to which they had acquired certain characteristics during their PhD.

They were also asked to what extent these characteristics had been important in developing their

career at work. Of highest importance were generic characteristics, such as problem solving, critical

thinking and oral communication. The characteristics that were seen as least important included

financial management skills and teaching skills. Gender differences in the attribute ratings are

displayed in Table 21. Note that only skills with significant gender differences were displayed and

these were ranked according to their overall importance to graduates’ work. The most significant

differences that female graduates ranked more highly than male graduates in developing their career

were an understanding of ethical values in research and teaching skills. The major factors that both

men and women ranked as more important for their careers than had been acquired during their PhD

study were an ability to work as a member of a team, an ability to work in an interdisciplinary context

and leadership skills. The factors ranked by both genders as less relevant to their careers than had been

acquired during their PhDs were knowledge and skills in their substantive area and independent

research skills.

In reporting the extent to which they used areas of knowledge or skills which they had acquired during

their PhD training, graduates stated that general knowledge about designing and undertaking research

(mean score of 3.93), and about analysing information or data (3.96) played a significantly larger role

in their current/most recent jobs than did knowledge of their PhD disciplinary area (3.61), or

knowledge of their PhD topic (3.12). There were no significant gender differences for the areas of

knowledge used in the job.

In commenting on the usefulness of PhD training for their current or most recent work, 79 percent of

respondents stated that the PhD was very useful or useful and eight percent that it was either

minimally or not useful. The results were almost identical when the question was asked with reference

to graduates’ post PhD careers and there were no significant gender differences for these satisfaction

ratings (Figure 3).



Table 21. Gender differences for work skills during PhD and as part of career

Work skills During PhD In career

Female mean score

Male mean score

Female mean score

Male mean score

An ability to think critically 4.30 4.23 * 4.56 4.46 **

An ability to solve problems successfully 4.13 4.13 4.56 4.48 *

An ability to take individual initiative 4.21 4.04 *** 4.48 4.32 ***

Data analysis skills/ ability to make sense of evidence 4.12 3.99 ** 4.23 4.13 *

Independent research skills 4.47 4.30 *** 4.17 4.05 *

Up-to-date knowledge and skills in your substantive field 4.33 4.23 ** 4.07 4.09

An ability to work as a member of a team 2.93 2.90 4.21 3.93 ***

An ability to work in an interdisciplinary context 3.31 3.29 3.98 3.83 ***

Up-to-date knowledge and skills about methodological issues 4.05 3.94 ** 3.89 3.81

Assertiveness 3.16 2.98 ** 3.99 3.66 ***

Leadership skills 2.85 2.74 * 3.93 3.67 ***

Skill in project management 2.79 2.63 ** 3.80 3.59 ***

Teaching skills 3.03 2.87 ** 3.57 3.20 ***

A capacity to contribute to the development of professional practice 2.72 2.70 3.30 3.12 **

Skill in grant writing 2.24 2.27 3.28 3.09 *

An understanding of ethical values in research 3.52 3.09 *** 3.37 2.94 ***

Financial management skills 1.73 1.84 * 2.73 2.71 *p<0.05, **p<0.01,***p<0.001

Figure 3: Overall usefulness of PhD

52

27

13

62

53

27

12

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

very useful useful moderately useful minimally useful not useful

Usefulness of PhD

Perc

ent

To your current/most recent workactivities (n=1906)

To your career after your PhD(n=1898)



Graduates were asked to rate the factors that determine a successful career. Overall, high ratings

without gender differences occurred for having a PhD, having a PhD from a leading university, having

good social networks/ connections and knowing the right people. In Table 22 the mean scores for

female and male graduates are presented for those factors with significant gender differences. The

ratings of female graduates were consistently higher and the greatest differences occurred for being

male, projecting a positive image at work, and being from the right ethnic background.

Table 22: Success for career factors and gender

Success for career factor Female mean score

Male mean score

Being good at what you do at work 4.7 4.63*

Projecting a positive image at work 4.32 4.17***

Conforming with organisational goals 3.9 3.79**

Working long hours 3.67 3.57*

Being male 2.85 2.35***

Being from the right social background 2.55 2.37**

Being from the right ethnic background 2.56 2.33*** *p<0.05, **p<0.01,***p<0.001

More than 79 percent of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with their current/most

recent job and about nine percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. These results were similar for

career satisfaction and gender differences were not statistically significant.

Respondents were asked how many specified research outputs they had produced before submitting

their PhD thesis and thereafter. Most common forms of output before the PhD were refereed articles

and conference papers which were produced by 75 and 85 percent of respondents respectively. Female

graduates generally produced fewer publication and conference related outputs than males with the

only exception being conference presentations before PhD completion. Table 23 presents the average

number of major publications types for female and male graduates.

Table 23: Work output prior to submitting and since submitting PhD thesis

Publication Outputs Before PhD submission Since PhD submission

Female average

Male average

Female average

Male average

Chapters in books 0.57 0.61 0.97 1.04

Refereed articles 3.33 4.35** 6.05 7.49**

Research/technical reports 1.94 2.97** 4.20 5.36

Conference papers 5.77 5.77 8.06 9.57*

Software products 0.05 0.26** 0.15 0.50**

*p<0.05, **p<0.01



6. The Determinants of Employment Outcomes

Section 5 presented descriptive results of gender differences in the employment outcomes of the Go8

PhD graduate cohort of 1999-2001. A further objective of this project was to investigate the

determinants of employment outcomes with particular reference to graduates’ PhD experiences. This

section addresses this objective by examining several different employment outcomes which relate to

both “objective” locations in labour markets and “subjective” assessments of job satisfaction and the

usefulness of the PhD degree for subsequent employment.

6.1 Modelling employment outcomes

The objective labour market outcomes examined in this report included employment in a higher

education institution rather than another kind of organisation and annual earnings. The occupation and

industry locations were identified as relevant outcome measures from preliminary analyses described

previously. These results indicated that nearly 50 percent of graduates were currently or most recently

employed in Higher Education and that most of the graduates were employed either in managerial or

professional occupations. Earning was chosen because this is an indicator of labour market advantage

and disadvantage.

These measures were supplemented by subjective measures of job and career satisfaction and

perceptions of the usefulness of the PhD for subsequent employment. The objective measures

identified key features of doctoral graduates’ employment patterns, while the subjective measures

provided information about graduates’ satisfaction with work and their evaluation of the usefulness of

the PhD for careers and employment.

To examine how objective and subjective employment outcomes were related to other factors we used

linear and logistic multiple regression techniques (see, for example, Chatterjee & Hadi 2006). These

are statistical techniques that enable us to relate variation in a response variable, such as annual

earnings or satisfaction with job and career, for example, to variation in a number of “independent”

variables, such as gender, discipline of study, or level of mentoring by a PhD supervisor. Regression

methods enable us to identify which factors are associated with high and low earnings, or high and low

job satisfaction, and quantify the nature of the relationship between them. The set of independent

variables used in the regression analyses were deliberately broad to allow the research team to explore

sources of variation in graduates’ employment outcomes. The specific dependent and independent

variables used in the analyses are described in appendix 2. They contain references to question

numbers in the questionnaire which is attached as appendix 3.



6.2 Influences on annual earnings

Across the sample, graduates reported average annual earnings in their current or most recent job of

$74,488, with median annual earnings of $70,000 per year. Graduates who were currently employed in

higher education institutions earned about $9,000 per year less than graduates employed in other

organisations, while graduates employed in managerial or professional jobs earned almost $17,500

more per year than graduates in other occupations. However, there were systematic variations in

earnings associated with family and labour market circumstances before the PhD, demographic

characteristics and aspects of the PhD experience. These results are shown in Table 24 which reports

statistically significant estimates from a linear regression analysis of annual earnings on the

independent variables described above. The regression model included a variable indicating

employment in higher education. For conciseness only those with statistically significant associations

with earnings are shown in the table. Together the independent variables explain about 35 percent of

the variance in annual earnings, implying that the regression model had reasonable explanatory power.

Among the demographic variables, gender was strongly and significantly associated with differences

in annual earnings. Net of other things, female graduates earned about $8,363 per year less than men

(that is, if we compared two graduates, one male and the other female, who were identical on all

independent variables included in the regression model apart from gender, the female graduate would

earn about $8,363 less than the male graduate).

The effects of pre-PhD experiences on earnings were associated primarily with occupation and hours

worked in jobs before the PhD and in the impact of interruptions to employment or education to look

after home and family. The results indicate that an uninterrupted educational history from

undergraduate training to postgraduate training is associated with better earnings than disrupted career

paths. These impacts are strengthened by the finding for time to award which showed that faster

completion times are associated with higher earnings. As we have already noted the literature suggests

that, while both men and women report how family lives limited careers, it is women’s careers and

women’s income that are more often constrained by marriage and family.

A number of factors occurring during the PhD were also associated with post-PhD earnings. In

particular, graduates whose supervisors mentored them extensively and graduates who participated in



relationships and academic and professional connections in securing good employment outcomes. We

have noted in Table 7, above, the differential assessments of male and female graduates concerning

support from supervisors. The only remaining factor of note is that graduates whose reasons for

commencing the PhD were strongly intrinsic ones, based on interest in the topic, discipline or research

(factor more likely to pertain to women), earned less than graduates with weaker intrinsic motivations.



Table 24: Linear regression analysis of annual earnings

Variables Coefficient

25-34 years old 3379

35-39 years old 6906*



Reference category is 55 years and older

Female -8362***

International student -16475***

Breaks in educational employment to look after home/children at some stage before PhD -3914*

Managerial or Professional employment in last major job before PhD 6999**

No major employment before PhD 6825*

Reference category is non-managerial and non-professional occupation

Hours worked in last major job before PhD 172*

Employment during PhD 7635***

Extent of intrinsic motivation for PhD -3033*

Undertaking PhD as independent contribution to larger project 3835

Undertaking PhD as solo project 5797*

Reference category is PhD as part of team

Level of principal supervisor support 2473**

Extent of networking during PhD 1976*

Extent of aspiration to work in professional field, as a manager or consultant 2486***

Extent of acquisition of team based skills -3102**

Natural or Physical Sciences -2890

Applied Sciences 1520

Health sciences 8326***

Reference category is Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences

Received scholarship support -7747***

Time to award -1099**

Hours worked in current/most recent job 965***

Employed in Higher Education -9176***

Managerial occupation in current/ most recent job 17466***

Intercept 33287***

Number of observations=1731 Adjusted R²= 0.35

Note: Regression analysis includes all independent variables described in text, one variable indicating managerial versus professional occupation and one variable indicating employment in higher education. Only statistically significant regression coefficients and non-significant coefficients of dummy variables that represent one concept in conjunction with other significant dummies are shown in table. For example, if one of the dummy variables for disciplinary group was significant the other dummies indicating other categories of disciplinary group were also displayed in the table when their coefficients were not significant. Respondents employed overseas are included in the analysis. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.



6.3 Factors associated with being employed in higher education

To determine the influence of various factors of relevance to employment in higher education a

logistic regression analysis was performed. Table 25 lists these factors as independent variables and

displays main effects and interactions.

The results indicated that female graduates are more than twice as likely to work at Australian

universities as their male counterparts. Age and presence of children did not have significant effects.

As compared to the Humanities and Social Sciences disciplines, graduates from Hard Applied

Sciences, Natural Science and Health were less likely to work at universities. Graduates with higher

career motivation for completing a PhD were more likely to work at universities than those with lower

career motivation. Graduates who wholly or mainly belonged to a research group were less likely to be

working at universities than those who were not part of a research group. Graduates who had

aspirations to become an academic or researcher outside academia were 1.7 times more likely to work

at university than those who didn’t, and graduates who had aspirations to work in the professional

field or as a manager/ executive were significantly less likely to work at university than those who did

not have such aspirations. Only one interaction effect was statistically significant in the data and this

indicated that female graduates in the age group of 35 to 39 year olds are less likely to be working at

university than their male counterparts.

Table 25. Model for Employment within Australian Universities during 2006

Independent Variables Estimated odds ratio Coefficient

Main effects

Demographics

Female [Ref: Male] 2.21* 0.79

Age group [Ref: Aged 25-34]

Aged 35-39 1.50 0.40

Aged 40-44 0.88 -0.12

Aged 45-54 0.92 -0.08

Presence of Children

No child 1.54 0.429

Child born before starting PhD 1.21 0.186

Child born during PhD study 1.52 0.416

Child born after PhD completed 1.40 0.339

Age of youngest child 1.01 0.012

PhD Experiences

Disciplinary Group [Ref: Humanities & Social Sciences]

Natural Sciences 0.38*** -0.98

Hard Applied 0.54** 0.61

Health 0.34*** -1.07



Index of intrinsic motivation for doing a PhD 0.91 -0.09

Index of career motivation for doing a PhD 1.34*** 0.29

Type of PhD [Ref: PhD as solo project]

PhD as independent contribution to project 0.77 -0.26

PhD as part of team project 1.16 0.15

Belonging to Research Group [Ref: Not being part of a research group]

Wholly/mainly being part of a research group 0.66* -0.42

Partly involved with a research group 0.94 -0.07

Index for extent of:

supervisor involvement 1.16 0.15

networking during PhD 1.19 0.17

structure in PhD program 1.00 -0.01

attendance of seminars & coursework 0.85 -0.16

aspiration to become academic or researcher outside academia 1.70*** 0.53

aspiration to work in professional field or as a manager/executive 0.51*** -0.68

Time to award 0.93 -0.07

Enrolment status [Ref: full-time]

Part-time 0.85 -0.16

50-50 full-time/part-time split 0.66 0.41

Year graduated [Ref: 2001]

1999 0.97 -0.03

2000 0.99 -0.01

2-way interactions: gender

Female x Aged 35-39 0.38* -0.97

Female x Aged 40-44 0.80 -0.22

Female x Aged 45-54 1.08 0.08

Female x Aged 55+ 0.80 -0.23

Female x PhD as independent contribution 1.76 0.56

Female x PhD as part of team project 0.44 -0.82

Number of observations 1219

Pseudo R-squared 0.19

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

7 Discussion and conclusions

As noted above, growing numbers of women completing higher degrees and entering academic

employment in Australia has not led—as generally anticipated—to stronger representation of women

in senior academic ranks. Yet our understanding of precisely how the different experience of men and

women both during the PhD and in the years following contributes to persistent differential career

outcomes has been limited by the lack of representative and relevant data. The current study fills a

substantial gap in our knowledge of the gendered dimensions of early academic career development



through its use of a new nationally-representative data set containing survey responses collected in

2006 from almost 2000 PhD graduates, who completed their degree between 1999 and 2001 at eight

Australian universities.

By following the entry of the 1999-2001 female PhD graduate cohort into university (and other)

employment and by comparing their experiences both during PhD enrolment and in the initial period

thereafter with the male cohort from the same period, we are able to establish the factors around which

gender differences emerge in this critical initial phase of PhD graduates’ careers.

The analysis has been divided into four thematic areas: the influence of the PhD experience; career

and employment post-PhD; family formation and employment outcomes; and factors influencing

successful career development.

The first question we turned to – that of motivations to undertake a PhD has not been widely

canvassed in the literature but illuminated some significant differences between male and female

graduates. Female graduates were significantly more likely than male graduates to report that they

pursued their PhD for such intrinsic motivations as intellectual and academic development, interest in

the discipline area, personal satisfaction, because of interest in the discipline area and interest in the

thesis topic. These are important findings in light of further analysis that links motivations to

undertake a PhD with later employment characteristics such as income and appointments in

universities.

Individual motivations interact with the social processes that characterise the academic and social

environment in which research takes place in universities. PhDs can be solo projects or they can

involve research that is part of a larger research program or research group. Our findings revealed that

female PhD graduates are much more likely to complete their PhD as a solo project and are

significantly less likely to be part of a research group. Being involved in a research group or research

program during the PhD has some important consequences for developing the collaborative and

networking skills that are likely to impact on future employment opportunities and career paths.

In the absence of these opportunities, greater responsibility is placed on supervisory practices and

particularly support from supervisors for the development of work skills and practices that may be

important for future employment and career development. When asked to indicate the extent to which

they perceived that their principal supervisor helped them with various aspects of the PhD experience,

female graduates reported significantly less encouragement than males in those areas relevant to

building academic careers: publishing their own work; preparing funding proposals; giving conference

papers; and develop professional relationships. In general, assistance in gaining employment was

significantly more likely to be available to male rather than female PhD candidates.



Support from supervisors and particularly the extent to which they helped to develop professional

relationships with other in the field appeared to have important consequences for integration into the

professional community and the development of professional identities. Female graduates were less

likely to be engaged with their professional community. In particular, female graduates were

significantly less likely than male graduates to interact with professionals outside academia and with

visiting scholars during the course of their PhD studies. Together these findings suggests a pressing

need to consider how supervisory practice and/or supervisor training might be reconfigured to ensure

the impact of this differential access to key professional development opportunities is fully understood

and effective measures developed to address it.

At the time of the survey 90 percent of respondents were in employment. The majority (74%) of

respondents had held between one and four jobs between submitting their PhD. Approximately 50

percent of graduates were employed at universities and the majority of these graduates worked at one

of the G08 universities. In contrast to male graduates, significantly more female graduates worked at

Australian universities. The relative likelihood of working in the university sector was strongly related

to being female, having a strong career motivation to undertake a PhD and having a disciplinary

background in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.

Not all of the respondents in employment appeared to be in secure employment. 29 percent were on

fixed term contracts and three percent in casual employment. A significantly higher proportion of

female graduates were in these less secure employment situations and were more likely to work part-

time. At the G08 universities significantly fewer female graduates were in supervisory or managerial

positions compared to male graduates and this gender difference was more pronounced for graduates

with children. This finding confirms those of other studies that reported women experience a lower

level of employment security and are frequently appointed at lower levels. The fact that gender

differences were more pronounced at the research intensive G08 universities—and also more extreme

for women living with children—could relate to the difficulties women experience when trying to

combine the demands of research productivity and those of childbearing and childrearing, although it

is also arguable that these difficulties are exacerbated by the failure of universities to keep pace with

the changing demographics of their actual and potential labour force. Further, given international

research (Nakhaie 2002; Noordenbos 1992) suggests that women with domestic and childrearing

responsibilities are not necessarily outperformed in the workplace or in research by men or by women

without similar responsibilities, the possible impact of prejudice and stereotypes on perceptions of

academic mothers’ abilities and performance cannot be overlooked. Under-employment of skilled

graduates ultimately represents a net loss for the sector.

In turning to the actual work activities that PhD graduates undertake in their current jobs (what might

be termed the labour process as opposed to the labour market), a number of interesting patterns



emerge from the data. In particular, female graduates worked to a greater extent in academic teaching

and in advising or mentoring students, while male graduates worked to a greater extent in undertaking

research, managing and supervising others and product development. What is compelling about this

finding is how strongly it confirms the gendered division of academic labour theorised by Park (1996)

and previously tracked by Asmar (1999) and Bagilhole and White (2003) among others. The

consistency with which this pattern is identified in study after study not only confirms how entrenched

it is in our academic workplaces, but highlights the ways in which other noted patterns (e.g those

linking gender and research performance) need to be understood in the context of these often under-

acknowledged aspects of our organisational culture.

Respondents reported on those characteristics that they had acquired during their PhD that had been

important in developing their career at work. The factors that female graduates ranked significantly

more highly than male graduates in developing their careers were an understanding of ethical values in

research and teaching skills. The major factors that both men and women ranked as more important for

their careers than had been acquired during their PhD study were an ability to work as a member of a

team, an ability to work in an interdisciplinary context and leadership skills.

When asked to rate the factors that determine a successful career, both male and female graduates

accorded high significance to having a PhD from a leading university, having good social networks/

connections and knowing the right people. Women were much more likely than men to nominate

projecting a positive image at work, being male and being from the right ethnic background. Women

reported that gender mattered and that particular career benefits accrue from simply being male.

One of the major career benefits is earnings and our analysis revealed systematic variations in earnings

associated with family and labour market circumstances before the PhD, demographic characteristics

and aspects of the PhD experience. Among the demographic variables, gender was strongly and

significantly associated with differences in annual earnings. Net of other things, female graduates

earned about $8,363 per year less than men. The effects of pre-PhD experiences on earnings were

associated primarily with occupation and hours worked in jobs before the PhD and in the impact of

interruptions to employment or education to look after home and family. The results indicate that an

uninterrupted educational history from undergraduate training to postgraduate training is associated

with better earnings than disrupted career paths. These impacts are strengthened by the finding for

time to award which showed that faster completion times are associated with higher earnings. As we

have already noted the literature suggests that, while both men and women report how family lives

limited careers, it is women’s careers and women’s income that are more often constrained by

marriage and family.

A number of factors occurring during the PhD were also associated with post-PhD earnings. In

particular, graduates whose supervisors mentored them extensively and graduates who participated in





relationships and academic and professional connections in securing good employment outcomes. As

we have noted above, these are matters in which female PhD graduates report having significantly less

support than males.

The general conclusion supported by this study is that there are indeed significant differences between

male and female PhD candidates in attitudes, family circumstances, the social context of PhD

research, employment outcomes, and career development. In all of these matters women are less likely

than men to report positive outcomes. Gender differences among recent Australian graduates

regarding employment outcomes continue to be a matter of concern for Australian universities. Our

research results confirmed the continued existence of the gender pay gap. Women were less likely to

have earning in the higher income brackets and were less likely to be employed in managerial or

supervisory positions especially at the G08 universities. These differences were more pronounced for

graduates living with children.

In our view these results provide an overview of some important social processes that involve the

intersection of attitudinal factors, the social context of PhD research, and issues surrounding family

formation. These circumstances are likely to be at their most intense during PhD candidature and in

the early stages of career development. The results also suggest that these factors collide with

expectations in research intensive workplaces and those in which high levels of performance are

mandated for appointments and promotions. As we have emphasised throughout this report, gender is

implicated in all of these circumstances which are significantly more likely to favour men. It is

important to note that this is not to say that female PhD graduates will inevitably be disadvantaged in

the labour market. What we can say is that these circumstances are comparatively more likely to

impact on women than on men. Some of these processes have their origins in broader social processes

while some of them reflect a degree of unwillingness to change on the part of universities and other

employing organizations. We believe that this analysis we have reported above provides a strong

evidence base for some of these practices to be redressed.



References

Allen, Margaret and Castleman, Tanya (2001). Fighting the Pipeline Theory. In Ann Brooks and

Alison Mackinnon, eds. Gender and the Restructured University: Changing Management

and Culture in Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and

Open University Press, 151-65.

Alper, Joe (1993). The Pipeline is Leaking Women All the Way Along. Science 260(5106), pp.409-

411.

American Sociological Association (ASA) (2004). The Best Time to Have a Baby: Institutional

Resources and Family Strategies Among Early Career Sociologists. ASA Research Brief.

ASA Department of Research and Development.

www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/research_and_stats/briefs_and_articles/briefs_and_articles

Archer, Louise (forthcoming). The New Neo-Liberal Subjects? Young(er) Academics’ Constructions

of Professional Identities.

Armenti, Carmen (2004a). May Babies and Posttenure Babies: Maternal Decisions of Women

Professors. The Review of Higher Education 27(2), pp. 211-231.

Armenti, Carmen (2004b). Women Faculty Seeking Tenure and Parenthood: Lessons From Previous

Generations. Cambridge Journal of Education 34(1), pp.65-83.

Asmar, Christine (1999). Is There a Gendered Agenda in Academia? The Research Experience of

Female and Male PhD Graduates in Australian Universities. Higher Education 38(3), pp.255-

273.

American Anthropological Association (AAA) (1997). 1997 AAA Survey of Anthropology PhDs.

http://www.aaanet.org/surveys/97survey.htm, accessed on 30 June 2006.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (n.d.). Table: Highest Level of Education by Professional

Occupation. Prepared by the ABS from data from Survey of Education & Work, May 2002.

received on 20 September 2005.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1997). Australian Standard Classification of Occupations.

Second Edition. Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/Lookup/A86A0162E6F672DFCA256ADB001

D10D4/$File/asco.pdf, accessed on 15 September 2006.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001). Australian Standard Classification of Education

(ASCED) 2001. Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/66f306f503e529a5ca25697e0017661f/C56964937831

87CACA256AAF001FCAC6?opendocument, accessed on 20 October 2006.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006). Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial

Classification (ANZSIC) 2006. Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/10AD7A6DDB4190BFCA257122001



ACD9E/$File/12920_2006.pdf, accessed on 3 October 2006

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). Higher Education. Year Book Australia, 2008. Commonwealth

of Australia.

Australian Research Council (ARC) (1996). Waiting in the Wings: a study of early career academic

researchers in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Public Service.

Bagihole, Barbara and White, Kate (2003). Created in Their Image: An Analysis of Male Cultural

Hegemony in Higher Education in Australian and the United Kingdom. In Barbara

Groombridge and Vera Mackie, eds. Re-Searching Research Agendas: Women, Research

and Publication in Higher Education: Proceedings of the Australian Technology Network -

Women’s Executive Development (ATN-WEXDEV) 2003 Research Conference. Perth, WA:

Learning Support Network, Curtin University of Technology.

Bardoel, E. Anne (2005). The Case for Flexible Work Options and the On-Demand Professional.

Department of Management Working Paper Series No. 16/05. Melbourne: Monash University

Department of Management.

Bazely, Pat (1999). Continuing Research by PhD Graduates. Higher Education Quarterly 53(4),

pp.333-352.

Bazely, Pat (2003). Defining ‘Early Career’ in Research. Higher Education 45(3/4), pp.257-279.

Bazely, Pat et al (1996). Waiting in the Wings: A Study of Early Career Academic Researchers in

Australia. National Board of Employment, Education and Training. Commissioned Report

No, 50. Macarthur: University of Western Sydney.

Becher, Tony (1994). The Significance of Disciplinary Differences. Studies in Higher Education,

19(2), pp.151-162

Bell, Sharon (2003). Writing (research) culture. In B. Groombridge and V. Mackie, eds. Re-searching

research agendas: Women, research and publication in higher education: Proceedings of the

Australian Technology Network - Women’s Executive Development (ATN-WEXDEV) 2003

Research Conference Perth, WA: Curtin University of Technology Learning Support

Network, 13-22.

Bell, Sharon and Bentley, Rhonda (2005). Women in Research: Discussion Paper. Prepared for the

AVCC National Colloquium of Senior Women Executives.

Biglan, Anthony (1973). The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 57(3), pp.195-203.

Blaxter, Lorraine, Hughes, Christina, and Tight, Malcolm (1998). Writing on Academic Careers.

Studies in Higher Education 23(3), pp.281-295.

Borthwick, Jill and Wissler, Rod (2003). Postgraduate Research Students and Generic Capabilities:

online directions. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training, Research

Evaluation Programme Higher Education Group.



Braishner, Tamsin L., Symonds, Matthew R.E., and Gemmell, Neil J. (2005). Publication Success in

Nature Is Not Gender Dependent. BioEssays 27, pp.858-859.

Britton, Carolyn (1999). Supporting Women in Research. In Sue Hatt, Julie Kent and Carolyn Britton,

eds. Women, Research and Careers. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 69-88.

Centre for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education (CIRGE) (n.d.). PhDs: Five Years Out

Survey. http://depts.washington.edu/coe/cirge/html/ford.html, accessed on 25 November 2006

Chatterjee, Samprit and Hadi, Ali S. (2006). Regression Analysis by Example. New Jersey: Wiley.

Chrisler, Joan C. (1998). Teacher Versus Scholar: Role Conflict for Women. In Lynn H. Collins, Joan

C. Chrisler and Kathryn Quina, eds. Career Strategies for Women in Academe: Arming

Athena. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 107-137.

Coiner, Constance and George, Diana Hume, eds. (1998). The Family Track: Keeping Your Faculties

While You Mentor, Nurture, Teach and Serve. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Cole, Jonathan R. and Zuckerman, Harriet (1984). The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and Change

in Pattern of Publication of Men and Women Scientists. In P. Maehr and M.W. Steinkamp,

eds. Advances in Motivation and Achievement. Vol. 2. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Cumming, Jim (2006). Contemporary Doctoral Practices.

http://www.anu.edu.au/cedam/staff/jim.cumming.html, accessed on 12 November 2006.

Currie, Jan and Newson, Janice, eds. (1998). Universities and Globalization: Critical Perspectives.

London: Sage Publications.

Davies, Bronwyn and Bansel, Peter (2005). The Time of Their Lives? Academic Workers in

Neoliberal Time(s). Health Sociology Review 14(1), pp.47-58.

Deane, Elizabeth et.al. (1996). Women, Research and Research Productivity in the Post-1987

Universities: Opportunities and Constraints. University of Western Sydney, Nepean, NSW:

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Evaluations and

Investigations Program, Higher Education Division.

Deem, Rosemary and Brehony, Kevin J. (2000). Doctoral Students’ Access to Research Cultures: Are

Some More Unequal Than Others? Studies in Higher Education 25(2), pp.149-165.

Delamont, Sara and Atkinson. Paul (2004). Successful Research Careers: A Practical Guide.

Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) (2001). Graduate Skills Assessment.

Summary Report.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2001). Students 2000: Selected Higher

Education Statistics. Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.dest.gov.au/Search.htm?query=students%202000, accessed on 7 March 2006.

Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs. (2001). Characteristics and performance

indicators of higher education institutions, 1992 to 2001, DETYA. from

http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/statistics/characteristics/contents.htm



Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2002). Students 2001: Selected Higher

Education Statistics. Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/F639BE40-DD97-404F-B5AB-858F6C0FFC9E/2460/

Students2001.pdf, accessed on 7 March 2006.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2002). Students 2002 (First Half Year):

Selected Higher Education Statistics. Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/F8AF8C6B-0379-4F90-AC13-

BAF93EC09459/2462/students_2002firsthalf.pdf, accessed on 7 March 2006.

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA), (1998). Learning for

Life: review of higher education financing and policy: final report. Canberra: Australian

Government Public Service.

DEST (2005). Award Course Completions For All Students by Level of Course, Broad Field of

Education and Gender, 2005. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Technology.

Available at:

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/statistics/documents/

students_award_course_completions_2005_xls.htm, accessed 21 March 2008.

De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Crows Nest (New South Wales): Allen & Unwin.

Dever, Maryanne (2006). Fully Flexible: Research Performance, Professionalism and Performativity.

Proceedings of ATN 2006 International Women’s Executive Development Conference,

Change in Climate: Prospects for Gender Equity in Universities, Adelaide, 11-13 April 2006.

Dever, Maryanne, Morrison, Zoë, Dalton, Barbara, and Tayton, Sarah (2006). When Research Works

for Women. Melbourne: Monash University.

Devos, Anita (2000). WomenResearch21: Responding to the Issues for Beginning Women

Academics. HERDSA News 22(2), pp.11-13.

Ding, Waverley W., Murray, Fiona and Stuart, Toby E. (2006). Gender Differences in Patenting in the

Academic Life Sciences. Science 313, pp.665-67.

Doherty, Liz and Manfredi, Simonetta (2005). Improving Women’s Representation in Senior Positions

in the Higher Education Sector, Stage 1 Findings. Oxford: Centre for Diversity Policy

Research, Oxford Brookes University.

Employment Studies Research Unit (ESRU), University of the West of England (2004). Seven Years

On: Graduates in the changing labour market. ESRU.

http://www.uwe.ac.uk/bbs/research/esru/7-up.shtml, accessed on 5 November 2006.

Enders, Juergen (2002). Serving Many Masters: the PhD on the Labour Market, the Everlasting Need

of Inequality, and the Premature Death of Humboldt. Higher Education 44, pp.493-517.

Evans, Terry, Macauley, Peter, Pearson, Margot and Tregenza, Karen (2004). A Decadic Review of

PhDs in Australia. Presented at New Zealand Association for Research in Education

Conference, Auckland, 29 Nov - 2 Dec 2003.



Eveline, Joan and Currie, Jan (2006). Heavy Going in ‘Light Modernity’: Managing Emails, Mobiles

and Gender in a Sandstone University. Paper presented at ATN WexDev 2006 International

Women’s Executive Development Conference, Change in Climate: Prospects for Gender

Equity in Universities, Adelaide, 11-13 April.

Everett, James E. (1994). Sex, Rank and Qualifications at Australian Universities. Australian Journal

of Management 19(2), pp.159-75.

Forster, Nick (2000). A Case Study of Women Academics’ Views on Equal Opportunities, Career

Prospects and Work-Family Conflicts in a British University. Women in Management Review

15(7), pp.316-330.

Fox, Mary Frank (2001). Women, Science and Academia: Graduate Education and Careers. Gender

and Society 15(5), pp.654-666.

Fox, Mary Frank (2005). Gender, Family Characteristics, and Publication Productivity Among

Scientists. Social Studies of Science 35, pp.131-150.

Fox, Mary Frank and Colatrella, Carol (2006). Participation, Performance, and Advancement of

Women in Academic Science and Engineering: What Is At Issue and Why. Journal of

Technology Transfer 31, pp. 377-386.

Fox, Mary Frank and Faver, Catherine (1985). Women, Men, and Publication Productivity.

Sociological Quarterly 26, pp.537-549.

Godden, Judith (1996). From New to Successful Researcher: Enhancing the Research Skills of

Academics. In Judith Godden, Angela Brew and Ernest Roe, eds. Learning research skills:

Programs and issues: Reports on the research skills development program for academic staff

1990-1995. Sydney, NSW: University of Sydney Centre for Teaching and Learning.

Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA) (1999). Career Paths for PhD Graduates: a scoping

study. Canberra: Australian Research Council & Graduate Careers Council of Australia.

Grant, Linda and Ward, Kathryn (1991). Gender and Publishing in Sociology. Gender and Society

5(2), pp.207-23.

Groombridge, Barbara and Suzette Worden (2003). Values, Visions, Strategies and Goals: Is

Coaching a Viable Pathway? In Barbara Groombridge and Vera Mackie, eds. Re-Searching

Research Agendas: Women, Research and Publication in Higher Education: Proceedings of

the Australian Technology Network - Women’s Executive Development (ATN-WEXDEV) 2003

Research Conference. Perth, WA: Learning Support Network, Curtin University of

Technology.

Halford, Susan, Savage, Mike and Witz, Anne (1997). Gender, Careers and Organizations. London:

Macmillan.

Harley, Sandra (2003). Research Selectivity and Female Academics in UK Universities: From

Gentleman’s Club and Barrack Yard to Smart Macho. Gender and Education 15(4), pp.377-

92.



Harman, Grant (2002). Producing PhD graduates in Australia for the Knowledge Economy. Higher

Education Research and Development 21(2), pp179-190

Harman, Kay M. (2002). The Research Training Experiences of Doctoral Students Linked to

Australian Cooperative Research Centres. Higher Education 44, pp.469-492.

Harman, Kay M. (2004). Producing `Industry-Ready' Doctorates: Australian Cooperative Research

Centre Approaches to Doctoral Education. Studies in Continuing Education 26(3), pp.387-404.

Huisman, Jeroen and Bartelse, Jeroen (2001). Academic Careers. A Comparative Perspective.

University of Twente. http://www.awt.nl/uploads/files/academic.pdf, accessed on 10 March

2007.

Higgs, Joy (2003). Making a Difference. In Helen Edwards, David Baume and Graham Webb, eds.

Staff and Educational Development: Case Studies, Experience and Practice from Higher

Education. London, UK, and Sterling, VA: Kogan Page, 60-67.

Kemp, D. A. (1999). Knowledge and Innovation: A Policy Statement on Research and Research

Training (Whitepaper). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Kemp, D.H. (1999). New knowledge, New Opportunities--A Discussion Paper on Higher Education,

Research and Research Training (Green Paper). Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/otherpub/greenpaper/index.htm, accessed on 10

September 2004.

Kirkpatrick, Denise (1997). Women’s Perceptions of Research. In R. Murray-Harvey and H.C. Silins,

eds. Proceedings of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia

(HERDSA) 1997 International Conference. Adelaide, SA: HERDSA.

Kivinen, Osmo, Ahola, Sakari and Kaipainen, Päivi (1999). Towards the European Model of

Postgraduate Training. Turku: University of Turku.

Kolker Finkel, Susan, Olswang, Steven and She, Nian (1994). Childbirth, Tenure and Promotion for

Women Faculty. The Review of Higher Education 17(3), pp.259-70.

Landry, Réjean, Traoré, Namatie and Godin, Benoît (1996). An Econometric Analysis of the Effect

of Collaboration on Academic Research Productivity. Higher Education 32(3), pp.283-301.

Laudel, Grit and Gläser, Jochen (2007). From Apprentice to Colleague: The Metamorphosis of Early

Career Researchers. Higher Education 55, pp.387-406.

Leahey, Erin (2005). Solving the Productivity Puzzle: Research Specialization as a Missing Link.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Marriott

Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 12, 2005. Available at:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p19629_index.html>

Leonard, Diana (2001). A Woman’s Guide to Doctoral Studies. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open

University Press.

Leonard, Diana, Becker, Rosamunde and Coate, Kelly (2004). Continuing Professional and Career

Development: The Doctoral Experience of Education Alumni at a UK University. Studies in



Continuing Education 26(3), pp.369-385.

Leonard, Pauline and Malina, Danusia (1994). Caught Between Two Worlds: Mothers as Academics.

In Sue Davies et al, eds. Changing the Subject: Women in Higher Education. Bristol: Taylor

& Francis, 29-41.

Lightfield, E.T. (1971). Output and Recognition of Sociologists. The American Sociologist 6, pp.128-

133.

Long, J. Scott (1992). Measures of Sex-Differences in Scientific Productivity. Social Forces 71, pp.

159-178.

Lundy, Katherina L.P. and Warme, Barbara D. (1990). Gender and Career Trajectory: The Case of

Part-time Faculty. Studies in Higher Education 15(2), pp. 207-222.

Lynch, Kathryn (2002). An Immodest Proposal: Have Children in Graduate School. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, June 7, B5.

Mangematin, V. (2000). PhD Job Market: Professional Trajectories and Incentives During the PhD.

Research Policy 29, pp.741-756.

Mangematin, V., Mandran, N. and Crozet, A. (2002). The Careers of Social Science Doctoral

Graduates in France: the influence of how the research was carried out. European Journal of

Education 35(1), pp.111-124.

Marginson, Simon (2000). Rethinking Academic Work in a Global Era. Journal of Higher Education

Policy 22(1), pp.23-35.

Marginson, Simon (2002). Postgraduate Training in the Social Sciences: Knowledge, Engagement,

Vocation. Journal of Australian Studies, 74, pp.7-43.

Monash University, Faculty of Arts (n.d.). Research Pathways Project.

http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/research/pathways/background.php, accessed on 10 January

2007.

Morley, Louise (2007). The Gendered Implications of Quality Audit and Assurance. In Pam Cotterill,

Sue Jackson and Gayle Letherby, eds. Challenges and Negotiations for Women in Higher

Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 53-63.

Moses, Ingrid (1990). Barriers to Women’s Participation as Postgraduate Students. Canberra:

Australian Government Publishing Service.

Moses, Ingrid (1992). Issues in Women’s Participation. In D.J. Cullen, ed. Quality in PhD Education.

Canberra: CEDAM and the Graduate School, ANU.

Nakhaie, M. Reza (2002). Gender Differences in Publication Among University Professors in Canada.

The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 39(2), pp.151-79.

Nerad, Maresi et al (2008). Social Science PhDs — Five + Years Out: A National Survey of PhDs in

Six Fields: Highlights Report. Seattle: Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate

Education, University of Washington.



Nerad, Maresi with Miller, Debra Sands (1996). Increasing Student Retention in Graduate and

Professional Programs. In Jennifer Haworth, ed. Assessment in Graduate and Professional

Programs, Demand, Process, Outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 92.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nerad, Maresi and Stewart, Carol Lynn (1991). Assessing Doctoral Student Experience: Gender and

Departmental Culture. Higher Education Abstracts. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate

School.

Neumann, Ruth (2003). The Doctoral Education Experience: Diversity and Complexity. Canberra:

Commonwealth of Australia.

Noordenbos, Greta (1992). Explanations for Differences in Publication Rates Between Male and

Female Academics and Between Productive and Less Productive Women. Bulletin de

Methologie Sociologique 35, pp.22-45.

Nyquist, Jody and Woodford, Bettina (2000). Re envisioning the Ph.D. What Concerns Do We Have?

http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/PDF/ConcernsBrief.pdf, accessed on 28 August

2005.

O’Laughlin, Elizabeth and Bischoff, Lisa G. (2005). Balancing Parenthood and Academia:

Work/Family Stress as Influenced by Gender and Tenure Status. Journal of Family Issues 26(1),

pp.79-106.

Park, Shelley M. (1996). Research, Teaching and Service: Why Shouldn’t Women’s Work Count?

Journal of Higher Education 67(1), pp.46-84.

Perna, Laura W. (2001). The Relationship Between Family Responsibilities and Employment Status.

Journal of Higher Education 72(5), pp.584-611.

Poole, Millicent (1991). Establishing a Research Culture. HERDSA News 13(2), pp.3-5.

Price, Joseph (2006). Does a Spouse Slow You Down? Marriage and Graduate Student Outcomes.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=933674.

Probert, Belinda (2005). ‘I Just Couldn’t Fit It In’: Gender and Unequal Outcomes in Academic

Careers. Gender, Work and Organization 12(1), pp.50-72.

Probert, Belinda, Ewer, Peter, and Whiting, Kim (1998). Gender, Pay Equity in Australian Higher

Education. Melbourne: NTEU.

Purcell, Kate, Elias, Peter, Durbin, Sue, Davies, Rhys and Warren, Stella (2006). The employment of

Social Science PhDs in Academic and Non-academic Jobs: Research Skills and Postgraduate

Training. Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC).

http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/employment_of_soc_sci_phds_tcm

6-15385.pdf, accessed on 14 March 2006.

Purcell, Kate and Elias, Peter (2004). Seven Years On: Graduate Careers in a Changing Labour

Market. http://www.prospects.ac.uk/downloads/csdesk/members/reports/seven_years_on.pdf,

accessed on on 14 March 2006.



Office of Science and Innovation (1998). Survey of Postgraduates Funded by the Research Councils.

http://www.ost.gov.uk/research/funding/postgrad_survey/, accessed on 2 November 2006.

Ramsay, Karen (2007). Women: Mothers and Others. In Pam Cotterill, Sue Jackson and Gayle

Letherby, eds. Challenges and Negotiations for Women in Higher Education. Dordrecht:

Springer, 33-52.

Sadrozinski, Renate, Nerad, Maresi and Cerny, Joseph (2003). PhDs in Art History - over a decade

later. A national career path study on Art Historians. Center for Innovation and Research in

Graduate Education (CIRGE).

http://depts.washington.edu/coe/cirge/pdfs%20for%20web/arthistory/arthistory_report.pdf,

accessed on 8 June 2005.

Schneider, Alison. (1998). Why Don’t Women Publish as Much as Men? Some Blame Inequity in

Academe; Others Say Quantity Doesn't Matter. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

September 11, pp.14-16.

Short report. Higher Education Careers Services Unit (HESCU).

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/downloads/csdesk/members/reports/seven_years_on.pdf, accessed

on 22 October 2006.

Sinclair, Mark (2004). The Pedagogy of ‘Good’ PhD Supervision: A National Cross-Disciplinary

Investigation of PhD Supervision. Commonwealth of Australia.

http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/07C6492B-F1BE-45C6-A283-

6098B6952D29/2536/phd_supervision.pdf, accessed on 24 October 2006.

Smith, Steven J., Pedersen-Gallegos, Liane and Riegle-Crumb, Catherine (2002). The Training,

Careers, and Work of PhD Physical Scientists: Not Simply Academic. American Journal of

Physics 70(11), pp.1081-1092.

Symonds Matthew R. E. et. al. (2006). Gender Differences in Publication Output: Towards an

Unbiased Metric of Research Performance. PLoS ONE 1(1).

Available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000127,

accessed on 22 February 2008.

Taylor, Shelly E. and Martin, Joanne (1987). The Present-Minded Professor: Controlling One’s

Career. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Darley, eds. The Compleat Academic: A Practical Guide for

the Beginning Social Scientist. New York: Random House, 23–60.

Thompson, J., Pearson, M., Akerlind, G., Hooper, J., & Mazur, M. (2001). Postdoctoral training and

employment outcomes: Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods Australian

National University.

Thompson, John, Pearson, Margot, Akerlind, Gerlese, Hooper, John and Mazur, Nicole (2001).

Postdoctoral Training and Employment Outcomes. Evaluations and Investigations Programme,

Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.



Thornton, Saranna (2004). Where – Not When – Should You Have a Baby? The Chronicle of Higher

Education, October 8, B12.

Toren, Nina and Moore, Dahlia (1998). The Academic ‘Hurdle Race’: A Case Study. Higher

Education 35 (3), pp.267-83.

Trower, Cathy A. (2006). What New Scholars Want. In Gretchen M. Bataille and Betsy E. Brown,

eds. Faculty Career Paths: Multiple Routes to Academic Success and Satisfaction. Westport,

CT: Praeger/American Council on Education, 76-86.

Trower, Cathy A. and Black, Jared L. (2004). Study of New Scholars: Gender: Statistical Report

[Universities]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2004.

Valian, Virginia (1985). Solving a Work Problem. In M.F. Fox, ed. Scholarly Writing and Publishing:

Issues, Problems and Solutions. Boulder, CO: Westview, 99-110.

UK Grad Programme (n.d.). What Do PhDs Do?

http://www.grad.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Resources/What_Do_PhDs_Do_/p!eXecc

accessed 23 November 2006.

van Anders, Sari M. (2004). Why the Academic Pipeline Leaks: Fewer Men Than Women Perceive

Barriers to Becoming Professors. Sex Roles 51(9/10), pp.511-521.

Ward, Jeanette E. and Donnelly, Neil (1998). Is There Gender Bias in Research Fellowships Awarded

by the NHMRC? Medical Journal of Australia 169, pp.623-624.

White, Kate (2004). The Leaking Pipeline: Women Postgraduate and Early Career Researchers in

Australia. Tertiary Education and Management 10, pp.227-241.

Wilson, Robin (1999). Timing is Everything: Academe’s Annual Baby Boom. Female Professors Say

They Feel Pressure to Plan Childbirth for the Summer. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

June 25, A14.

Wilson, Robin (2003). How Babies Alter Careers for Academics. Having Children Often Bumps

Women Off the Tenure Track, A New Study Shows. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

December 5, A1.


Appendix 1 The University of Queensland Social Research Centre (UQSRC) Page 56

APPENDIX 1– Table of means and standard deviations

Table with means and standard deviations of variables used in regression models in Section 6

Variable Observations Mean Standard Deviation

Dependent Variables

Annual earnings 1901 74488.43 35411.74

Employment in higher education 1935 0.50 0.50

Managerial vs. professional occupation 1894 0.15 0.35

Experience of unemployment since PhD submission 1719 0.24 0.43

Job and career satisfaction 1924 3.92 0.88

Perceived usefulness of PhD 1908 4.21 0.96

Demographic variables

25-34 years old 1974 0.20 0.40

35-39 years old 1974 0.26 0.44

40-44 years old 1974 0.19 0.39

45-54 years old 1974 0.21 0.41

Female 1979 0.46 0.50

International student 1988 0.14 0.35

Number of children 1973 1.27 1.22

Pre PhD experiences Experienced breaks in educational and employment history due to looking after home family at some stage before the PhD

1986

0.19

0.39

Managerial or Professional occupation in last major job before PhD 1996 0.56 0.50

No major job before the PhD 1996 0.31 0.46

Hours worked in last major job before PhD 1996 26.00 21.18

PhD experiences

Employment during PhD 1964 0.79 0.41

Extent of career motivation for PhD 1980 3.47 0.86

Extent of intrinsic motivation for PhD 1988 4.44 0.50

Undertaking PhD as independent contribution to larger project 1988 0.21 0.41

Undertaking PhD as solo project 1988 0.71 0.46

Level of supervisor support 1986 3.08 0.98

Extent of networking during PhD 1987 2.73 0.90

Degree of structure in PhD program 1996 1.93 1.23

Level of participation in seminars and coursework during the PhD 1969 1.33 0.40

Extent of aspiration to work in professional field, as a manager or consultant 1996 2.39 1.19

Extent of acquisition of traditional research skills 1985 4.06 0.69

Extent of acquisition of attributes for contributing to knowledge 1985 3.95 0.73



Continued

Variable Observations Mean Standard

Deviation

Extent of acquisition of team based skills 1977 2.69 0.89

Monash 1996 0.12 0.33

UADL 1996 0.06 0.24

UMEL 1996 0.19 0.39

UNSW 1996 0.12 0.32

UQ 1996 0.19 0.39

USYD 1996 0.19 0.39

UWA 1996 0.05 0.22

Natural or Physical Sciences 1982 0.36 0.48

Applied Sciences 1982 0.17 0.38

Health Sciences 1982 0.12 0.33

Graduated in 1999 1995 0.34 0.47

Graduated in 2000 1995 0.33 0.47

Received scholarship support during PhD 1996 0.80 0.40

Time to award 1987 5.71 1.98

Post PhD experiences

Number of jobs since PhD submission 1972 2.57 1.67

Hours worked in current/most recent job 1966 40.92 13.85



APPENDIX 2– Variables used in multiple regression analysis

Managerial versus Professional occupation

This was a binary dependent variable indicating employment in managerial as opposed to professional

occupations for all current/ most recent jobs. The variable was created based on the ASCO coded

responses to relevant questions (B5, B25, B34 and others, also see p18). Associate professional

occupations were grouped with professional ones for the purpose of this analysis.

Higher Education

A binary variable indicating employment in the Higher Education sector was created from the

ANZSIC 2006 industry classification responses to Question B37 (also see p17). This variable

measured whether a respondent’s current or most recent employer was a Higher Education institution

or some other kind of organisation.

Earnings

A variable for annual earnings was created from the responses to the salary Question B39. The

original question asked respondents to identify the income category corresponding to the gross annual

salary for their current or most recent job (B39). For the linear regression analysis, categories were

recoded to the midpoints of their class intervals (e.g. $5,000 for the first class $1-$9,999, $15,000 for

the second class $10,000-$19,999 and so on) to create a quantitative earnings variable. The last, open

ended, category ($150,000 or more) was defined as $175,000.

Post PhD unemployment

Respondents were asked if they had ever been unemployed since submitting their PhD (B14). A binary

variable was created for experience of post PhD unemployment. The variable distinguished graduates

who had been unemployed at least once following their PhD, for any length of time, from those who

have not.

Job and Career satisfaction

Respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their current or most recent job and their

current career on a five point scale (C7a and C7b). A new variable measuring overall job and career

satisfaction was obtained by taking the average score for each respondent on these two items.

Respondents with high scores (approaching a score of five) on the overall measure had high scores on

the two separate measures. Respondents with low scores on the overall measure of satisfaction had

low scores on the two original measures. Respondents who obtained scores of around three on a five-

point scale for overall job and career satisfaction either reported intermediate satisfaction levels with

both their current job and their career, or a high satisfaction score on one original variable, and a low

satisfaction score on the other. The rationale for creating a new overall job and career satisfaction

variable, rather than analysing each individual satisfaction separately was that the new variable



provided a more comprehensive measure of job and career satisfaction than either original variable

does, because it combined information from each of them.

A statistic called Cronbach’s alpha (De Vaus 2004: 184ff) tests whether it is statistically appropriate to

create new variables that are the sum or average of scores on two or more existing variables.

Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of the consistency of respondent’s answers to multiple questions that

all address the same basic concept, in this case job and career satisfaction. If a number of questions in

a questionnaire measure a common concept, we anticipate that respondents will give similar answers

to them, because each measures the same thing in slightly different ways. When respondents answer

consistently in this way, Cronbach’s alpha will take a value close to one. When respondents answer

questions in an inconsistent way (for instance reporting a high level of satisfaction with their current

job, but a low level of satisfaction with their career), Cronbach’s alpha will take a value near zero, and

it is not appropriate to create a new composite measure of overall job and career satisfaction. The rule

of thumb in social research is that if a set of variables returns a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.7 or

greater, it can be used to construct a new reliable and consistent composite measure. For the two

original satisfaction questions, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.78, indicating enough

consistency in responses to use the variables to create a new measure of overall job and career

satisfaction.

Perceived usefulness of PhD for post PhD employment

The perceived usefulness of the PhD for subsequent employment was assessed with another composite

variable derived from two questions asking respondents to rate the usefulness of their PhD training to

current or most recent work, and to the career after the PhD (E4a, E4b). This new variable was scored

from one to five. A score of one indicates that the PhD was not useful at all, and a score of five

indicates that it was very useful. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for these two items was 0.88, indicating

a very high level of consistency in respondents’ evaluations of the usefulness of PhD training for later

employment. Again, it is preferable to measure perceived usefulness of the PhD with a composite

variable because such a variable offers a more comprehensive assessment of perceived usefulness than

does each question considered singly.

Independent variables

The regression analyses reported below rely, for the most part, on a common set of independent

variables. Some measured aspects of the PhD program itself, while others measured respondents’

social and demographic characteristics, and relevant features of their educational, family and

employment histories.

The elements of the PhD program considered relevant for explaining variations in employment

outcomes included the following:



• whether graduates had received scholarships during their PhD

• whether graduates had worked during their PhD

• in how far graduates had been motivated when commencing a PhD

• the type of PhD

• to what extent graduates had received supervisor support

• to what extent graduates had been participating in the academic/professional community

• in how far the PhD program had been structured (requirements)

• in how far graduates had taken part in seminars and coursework in certain areas

• what career aspirations graduates had upon PhD completion

• to what extent graduates had acquired certain characteristics during their PhDs

• in which discipline the PhD was undertaken

• at which university the PhD was undertaken

• in which year respondents graduated and

• how long the PhD took to be completed

Post PhD employment outcomes are also potentially influenced by biographical factors that predate

the PhD. We took account of a number of such factors including:

• whether graduates had been out of the workforce for periods before the PhD to look after

home/family

• whether graduates had been employed before the PhD

• in what kind of occupations graduates had been employed prior to the PhD

• how many hours graduates had been employed in their last major pre PhD employment.

Further potential relevant factors in employment outcomes are demographic characteristics, such as:

• age

• gender

• international versus domestic students status and

• the number of children graduates had at the time of the survey.

These were also included as independent variables when modelling employment outcomes.

Variables that could themselves be seen as employment outcomes but that are likely to have a bearing

on the modelled employment outcomes were also included:

• hours worked in the current and or most recent job was included in the model for earnings

• whether graduates worked in managerial versus professional occupations was included in the

models for earnings, job and career satisfaction, and perceived usefulness of PhD for post PhD

employment



• whether graduates worked in Higher Education or not was also included in the models for

earnings, job and career satisfaction, and perceived usefulness of PhD for post PhD

employment

• graduates’ earnings were considered in modelling the two subjective employment outcomes

measures (job and career satisfaction and perceived usefulness of PhD for post PhD

employment)

• how many jobs graduates had since submitting their PhD was included in all models

As with the dependent variables, the independent variables also needed to be transformed to be

suitable for regression analyses. These transformations are described next.

Reasons for commencing a PhD – Intrinsic interest, career advancement, social factors.

Respondents were presented with a range of reasons for doing a PhD and asked how important each

one was in explaining why they began a PhD (D10a – D10l). These questions were designed to tap

intrinsic interest in the PhD, and extrinsic motivation in which the PhD was seen largely as a means to

another end, such as career advancement. The questionnaire responses were first analysed using

exploratory factor analysis, a statistical technique which helps researchers identify sets of questions

which have been similarly answered by respondents. Exploratory factor analysis assumes that certain

questions will be similarly answered because these questions measure the same underlying concept.

Based on the question sets identified by a factor analysis, researchers attempt to interpret the

underlying dimension or factor each set of questions represents. These interpretations provide a way of

explaining why certain questions attract similar answers.

An exploratory factor analysis of the Questions D10a – D10l identified three sets of items with similar

answer patterns. One (D10a, D10b, D10c, D10d, D10i) identified primarily intrinsic reasons for

starting the PhD (interest in research, interest in the thesis, interest in the discipline area, for personal

satisfaction, for intellectual and academic development). A second set (D10e, D10f, D10g, D10h,

D10l) identified instrumental reasons for starting a PhD that were linked to career advancement (the

PhD was a necessary job credential, to facilitate career change, to improve career prospects, to acquire

specialist skills, and to improve pay). Finally the factor analysis also suggested a third set of reasons

linked to social factors associated with the PhD (starting a PhD because encouraged by a colleague or

lecturer, or to have the prestige associated with the degree) (D10j, D10k).

Following the exploratory factor analysis each set of items was used to construct a new composite

index, which for each respondent was the average of their scores on the original items in the

questionnaire. To reinforce the results of the factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were

computed for each new index. For the items measuring intrinsic interest, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient

was 0.75. For instrumental career advancement, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78, while for the social

reasons, the alpha coefficient was 0.40. These results suggest that the first two indexes are reliable



ones, but that the third social one is a comparatively weak composite measure. It was not used in

further analysis.

Level of supervisor support and mentoring

The degree to which a graduate’s principal supervisor supported and mentored them was measured by

questions about the extent to which the principal supervisor helped the graduate develop professional

relationships, encouraged publication and conference attendance, assisted with funding proposals and

employment and helped graduates gain relevant skills and knowledge (D15a – D15f). An exploratory

factor analysis showed that these elements constituted one single dimension of supervisor support.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the index based on these items was 0.85.

Networking during PhD

An index measuring degree of involvement in academic and professional networking activities during

the PhD was constructed using responses to questions about the extent to which respondents

participated in organising conferences, interacted with visiting scholars, presented work at

conferences, and interacted with professionals outside academia (D16a – D16d). Coefficient alpha for

this index was 0.71.

Formally structured PhD program

The level of formal structure in the PhD program was measured with an index based on information

about the kinds of formal requirements graduates faced in their programs (D17a – D17f). These

requirements included a written thesis proposal, an oral defence of the proposal, an oral presentation

of the proposal, classes or coursework, and oral defence of the thesis and an oral presentation of the

thesis. The index counted the number of these requirements in the respondent’s PhD program.

Participation in seminars and coursework during the PhD

This variable was an index measuring participation in different types of coursework and/or seminars

(e.g. research methodology, data analysis, theory, teaching, project management, etc.) during the PhD

(D18a-D18g). Coefficient alpha for this index was 0.72

Career aspirations after the PhD

A factor analysis of items measuring respondents’ aspirations after the PhD suggested items fell into

two dimensions consisting of an academic or research career (D19a, D19b) and a professional/

consulting career (D19c, D19d, D19e). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the index measuring

professional/consulting career aspirations was 0.71. The alpha coefficient for the index measuring

academic and research aspirations was only 0.09 indicating a highly unreliable measure. In light of its

alpha coefficient, the second index was not used in further analysis.

Skills and abilities acquired during the PhD



The questionnaire contained a battery of items asking respondents about the kinds of skills and

abilities they acquired during their PhDs (E1a – E1u). A factor analysis identified three clusters of

items. One tapped a constellation of skills and abilities associated with independent analytic research

skills (critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, independent research skills, oral communication,

writing for publication, individual initiative, data analysis and capacity to make sense of evidence).

This is the skill-set of traditionally trained independent researchers.

A second dimension identified a cluster of skills associated with team-based research (grant writing,

project management, team-work, capacity to contribute to professional practice, ability to work in

interdisciplinary context, assertiveness, leadership, and financial management). The third dimension

was the capacity to contribute to knowledge at the leading-edge of a research area (up-to-date

knowledge and skills in own field, up-to-date knowledge and skills about methodology, ability to

contribute to scholarship in own area). Again, indexes were constructed for each of these three

dimensions. Coefficient alphas for the independent research skills cluster, the team-based research

skills cluster and the contribution to knowledge research skills cluster were 0.87, 0.84 and 0.81

respectively.

Scholarship

A dummy variable was created that indicated whether graduates had received any scholarship during

their PhD candidature. Information was used from responses to Questions B6a- B6h. Respondents

who indicated scholarship support were coded “1”, all others “0”.

Employment during PhD

A dummy variable was created where respondents who indicated employment during their PhD in D7

were coded “1”, and those who did indicate no employment were coded “0”.

Type of PhD

This variable measured the role of the respondent’s PhD in a larger research enterprise such as a team

project or a larger program of research (D11). One dummy variable was created to identify if the PhD

research was an independent contribution to a larger research program. A second dummy variable

identified solo projects. The reference category for these two variables was PhD research as part of a

team project.

Disciplinary group

Dummy variables that represented disciplinary groupings were based on ASCED coded responses to

Question D4 (also see p17). Broad fields of the ASCED classifications were grouped as follows:

• Natural and Physical Science constituted one group



• Information Technology, Engineering and Related Technologies and Agriculture,

Environmental and Related Studies were grouped under a second category: Applied Science

• Health constituted a third disciplinary group and

• Education, Management and Commerce, Society and Culture, and Creative Arts were grouped

together in a fourth category (Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences)

The grouping was inspired by but did not follow exactly the distinction of disciplines in Hard

Sciences, Hard Applied Sciences, Soft Sciences and Soft Applied Sciences made by Biglan (1973) and

Belcher (1994), and which found application in subsequent studies (e.g. Neumann 2003). For the

regression analyses, dummy variables were created for Natural and Physical Sciences, Applied

Sciences and Health. The reference category in the regression models is Arts, Humanities and Social

Sciences.

University

Seven dummy variables were created for the eight Go8 universities. The Australian National

University is the reference category in the regression models.

Graduation year

The information about the year of graduation was either taken from the questionnaire or from the

information passed on by graduates’ universities. Dummies were created for the years 1999 and 2000

leaving the year 2001 as the reference category in the multivariate analyses.

Duration of PhD

The duration of the PhD was based on responses to Questions D1 (date of start of PhD) and D3 (date

PhD awarded). This variable is an elapsed date measuring the time between the start of the PhD and

the award of the degree.

Breaks in educational and employment history due to looking after home/children at some stage

before PhD

Respondents were asked if they experienced any breaks in employment or study to look after home or

family (B1). A dummy variable coded “1” for respondents who answered “yes” is included in the

regression analyses.

Occupation in last major job before PhD

Respondents who had a job that lasted longer than 12 months before the PhD were asked about the job

title and the main tasks in the last job before the PhD that lasted longer than 12 months. The ASCO

coded responses (for ASCO coding see p18) to those questions were used to create three dummy

variables indicating occupation before the PhD. One dummy indicated an occupation as a

Manager/Administrator or Professional. Managers and Professionals were here aggregated because the



number of Manager/Administrator responses was low. A second dummy indicated employment in a

non-managerial and non-professional occupation. A third dummy indicated that a respondent had no

employment that lasted at least for 12 months before the PhD. The dummy on employment in

occupations other than managerial and professional served is the reference category in the regression

models.

Hours worked in last major job before PhD

Hours worked per week in the last job held before the PhD was captured in Question B6. This variable

is used in the regression analysis as a quantitative variable.

Number of children

Information about the number of respondents’ children was taken from Question F7. This is also a

quantitative variable.

Age

Respondent’s age was calculated from information about the year of birth. Responses were then

assigned to the following categories: 25-34 years, 35-39 years, 40-44 years, 45-54 years and 55 years

and older and dummy variables for each category were created. The oldest age group is the reference

category in the regression models.

Gender

A dummy variable indicating female respondents was included in the models.

International student status

The residency status during the PhD was captured in Question D5. Australian citizens and Permanent

Residents responses were coded as domestic students. Temporary residents and other responses were

coded as international students. A dummy variable indicating international student status was included

in the regressions.

Number of jobs since PhD submission

This information was captured from Question B17. It is used as a quantitative variable indicating

number of jobs held.

Hours in current/most recent job

The information for hours worked per week in current/most recent job came from Questions B30, B21

or B6 depending on respondent circumstances. Respondents without a job were assigned zero hours.

Apart from Hours in current/most recent job which was only used in the earnings model, all

independent variables described above were included in every regression model. Means and



standard deviations for all dependent and independent variables used in the regression

analysis are contained in Appendix 1

Gender Differences in Early Post-PhD Employment in Australian Universities: The influence of PhD...

Documents

Transcript of Gender Differences in Early Post-PhD Employment in Australian Universities: The influence of PhD...