In Search of Token Women in Academia

Abstract

Women faculty in predominantly male departments at a large university were interviewed and responded to paper-and-pencil instruments in a test of Laws' analysis of the necessity for the "token women" adaptation to their marginality for success in academia. By multiple criteria, three clusters were identified: (a) token women, who accepted academia as a meritocracy, were aware of little sex discrimination and belonged to no feminist group; (b) nontoken women, who disagreed with academia as a meritocracy and were aware of sex discrimination; and (c) women with mixed or moderate orientations. (Membership in feminist groups was found in the latter two clusters.) Women in the three clusters did not differ significantly by academic rank or marital status and only marginally by age and longevity in academia. As predicted, however, they did differ by tenure status. Contrary to Laws' analysis, token women were not more likely to have had a sponsor, which was significantly related only to rank. Women in the three clusters were equally accurate in recognizing male-female status discrepancies. Their differing definitions of sex discrimination were revealed in differential bias when choosing among alternatives of indeterminate correctness. Token women minimized such discrepancies, in line with beliefs attributing them to women, rather than the system. Others maximized such discrepancies.The university faculty has traditionally been a man's world, except in those fast-disappearing enclaves considered "women's fields" (e.g., home economics). Today, faculty women are tallied on affirmative action reports i n columns for persons with "minority characteristics."The research reported here was initiated and conducted by the first author with contributlons at all stages bv the second author, under the third author's supervision The latter hdd no access to data on individual faculty women Kequests for reprints should be sent to Carolyn W

Needed Concepts in the Study of Gender Identity

“…For example, despite discrimination against women in academia, a majority of academic women in studies done over a decade ago did not report such discrimination (Astin, 1969). Now, more do (Young, MacKenzie, & Sherif, 1980), and the "whys" of these findings are important psychologically. Similarly, the early use of the term "consciousness raising" pertained to bringing into awareness the linkages between the gender scheme and life experiences in a variety of social contexts, of which the individual was previously unaware.…”

“…Full acceptance of such reference groups, with no attempt to change their traditional structure or gender bias, creates the "tokenized" woman who also sees no need to relate to other women attempting to enter the institution (Laws, 1975). The alternative is a divided self, loyal to the profession while rejecting some or all of its gender-biased traditions, which is probably more frequent today (Young et al, 1980). Women who are also classified in a subordinated ethnic group have even more complicated problems.…”

Perceptions of Sex Discrimination Among Female University Faculty and Staff

“…The present study was designed to determine the extent to which academic women, both faculty and secretarial st&, perceive sex discrimination, and to identify some of the factors that appear to affect this perception. Previous studies of women working in academia have focused excIusively on faculty (e.g., Young, MacKenzie, & Sherif, 1980). Although sex discrimination in academia is assumed to affect faculty women most directly, departmental staff, i.e., secretaries, were included in this study for two reasons: (a) as working women they are also potential victims of sex discrimination, and (b) as office workers they are often in the position to observe the treatment of all faculty.…”

Is it All in the Numbers?: A Case Study of Tokenism

“…In contrast, Laws (1975) describes token women in academe as doubledeviants: deviating a first time from patriarchal societal norms by virtue of their gender and deviating a second time by aspiring to masculine roles and goals by virtue of their profession. Laws's analysis extends Kanter's emphasis on simple numbers as the defining characteristic of tokenism to include a normative social context influenced by broad societal standards (see also Young, MacKenzie, & Sherif, 1980. Kanter's (1977) To explore these different predictions we studied two work groups: a skewed group with two token white men and a balanced control group with equal numbers of women and men (as called for by South, Bonjean, Markham, and Corder, 1982).…”